Women Aren’t a Minority
We're going live.
I'm tired of this.
You got an appointment with the raccoon?
Yeah.
You got somewhere you gotta be?
You gotta be out in the backyard with a 2x4?
That's actually what happened and that actually worked.
Since almost hitting the raccoon with a 2x4, it has not come back.
Hitting the raccoon with a 2x4?
Is that code for something?
Did you really take a 2x4 to a raccoon like it's a friggin' baseball bat?
Yes.
Have you ever played baseball in your life?
I have played.
I don't remember whether I've actually gotten a hit.
It was probably more like polo, really, with the new sport that Marco now knows exists.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
Wait, but that's on horses, though, right?
Yeah, but you're swinging down to a thing on the ground.
Were you riding hops?
Yeah.
someone please draw that marco like don quixote on top of hops jousting with a two by four against a rabid raccoon in the corner of the duck hiding guarding its eggs
Now people think we're crazy who don't follow you on Twitter.
I mean, I didn't go and fetch a 2x4.
I happened to have a few in the backyard from Adam's party.
We were holding down a big tarp with them.
So I had a few very long 2x4s in the backyard.
And we were standing in the backyard with these two raccoons stalking the duck that's nesting in our backyard.
And they'd already gone for it once, and the duck made some crazy noise and scared them off temporarily.
But they were just sitting there, maybe 12 feet away.
It wasn't very far.
And they were just sitting in the tree.
And we tried shining the flashlight on their face, throwing pine cones at them.
We hit them a few times with the pine cones.
They didn't give two craps.
So eventually, I realized, oh, maybe they don't like water.
So I got the hose and sprayed them and...
made them slightly damp i mean it wasn't it wasn't even that much pressure because it was a terrible hose so i like i basically gave them a shower it was maybe go go put some conditioner in their hair yeah i mean it was it was the least intimidating use of a hose probably in history and uh and they they kind of seemed to get annoyed by the hose and just kind of like walked away slowly
Um, but then eventually they came back and that's, they, they were within swing distance of this two by four, which is probably if I had to guess six feet long.
So I tried swinging at it and I missed completely.
But the, the area that I hit, I had like hit it into a tree and the area that I hit was, I don't know, a couple of feet from the raccoon.
Then they left and they have not come back.
Uh, that was, and that was now two or three nights ago.
So can you explain why you think these unborn ducks have a greater right to life than these raccoons that are hungry?
There's a lot of other food for the raccoons to eat around here.
They have no shortage of food.
They have no trouble finding food.
It used to be my trash.
Now it's all the neighbor's trash since I got a trash house.
And if it wasn't this duck, they would go eat somebody's garbage and get a sandwich.
Like...
They are fine with food.
So I don't feel bad about this at all.
Also, raccoons are kind of a**holes.
And ducks, I know that ducks can be a**holes to some people, but ducks have not been a**holes to me.
Raccoons have been a**holes to me.
So I'm sure I have a bias here.
I'm sure we're going to hear from all the raccoon rights activists.
Oh, God.
I don't know.
I don't like raccoons.
And I have no reason to dislike ducks.
also it just seems like kind of a cheap shot like the mother duck is sitting on 11 eggs she has to sit there for like a month to bake them that's like that's like hitting somebody in the back like it's a cheap shot to like to try to attack her well like there in that in that kind of situation like have a fair fight somewhere you know go fight an adult duck well dwell on that the next time you're eating an omelet
But that doesn't require murdering a chicken.
What we do to the chickens that we get eggs from is way worse than anything that will ever happen to that duck.
Well, that is true.
That's a fair point.
No, I mean, look, this is why I'm not making a big political stink about my animal policies here, because I know that whatever opinion I have of the animals in my backyard is completely hypocritical for me to keep having meat and animal products in my life.
I think the motivation for this in the end is that the potential cuteness of baby ducks outweighs everything and everyone wants to see cute baby ducks.
Well, it's also the novelty.
You know, we've seen raccoons around our house since we moved in here almost five years ago.
This is the first time we've had ducks.
And we've never seen baby ducks.
This is the first time we've seen any duck.
And the adult duck is pretty cool looking.
We get these awesome pictures of her because she's a mallard.
She has the big blue square on her ring and everything.
It's great.
Or on her wing.
So yeah, she looks awesome.
Great picture opportunities.
Nobody wants a picture of a raccoon at night.
If this was, I guess, I'm trying to think of Merlin would be able to come up with a reference.
I'm just going to go with Adventure Time.
This was an episode of Adventure Time.
Those eggs would hatch and tiny alligators would come out of all of them.
Never seen it.
Nope.
All right, so let's start the show.
We have some follow-up.
Do we want to talk about some HFS Plus?
That was fast today.
Yeah, it was fast.
We had a question about it.
I think we were talking about our synologies, and Kane, I think you pronounced his name, said that...
Aren't you guys concerned about HFS Plus corruption?
Why aren't you concerned about EXT 3 or 4 corruption on your Synologies?
uh and my understanding is that ext34 don't have any of the functionality john wants built into the next os10 file system like checksumming so on and so forth i think that is correct but i'm not sure either way i'm pretty sure the synology does not have any checksumming so why aren't we concerned about corruption uh when using hfs plus and synologies i am i am concerned about it i'm exactly as concerned about it as i am all the time i wish my synology had data integrity i wish it ran zfs
Why don't you build your own NAS and put ZFS on it?
Because that sounds like a lot of work and really complicated.
And I should reiterate, maybe we didn't say this in the last show, we should reiterate for the people who haven't listened to the whole series.
Our Synologies were given to us by the Synology Corporation.
So these were gifts.
I probably wouldn't have bought this for myself.
Now that I have it, I think it's great, but it's the only NAS I've ever owned.
So I can't tell you whether it's better or worse than any other NAS.
I do know that I really wish to add data integrity.
And if someone made one of these things with ZFS on it, at this point, having lived with the NAS for a long time, I think I would probably consider buying it.
But I already have one.
And so I'm just kind of living with the potential crappiness of what I've got and worrying about the same amount I worry about everything else.
I don't know if you guys are worrying about it or just accepting your fate like so many other people.
Don't care.
Nope.
And we should also mention, like John said, these are all gifts from Synology.
And I was in the same situation as John, never had a NAS before.
I freaking love my Synology.
And I've been asked a lot lately, I'm not sure why, but we were all given DS 1813 pluses.
And I believe the modern version of that box is the 1815 plus version.
Synology has plenty of other models.
This one is pretty large, both physically and in terms of disk space, because it takes eight disks.
But they have much smaller versions.
They also have a 214 Play, which they also sent me one of those, which is much better for doing things like hosting Plex, if that's your cup of tea, because it has the appropriate chips for hardware transcoding.
But we've been asked a lot lately, and it's DS-1813 is our model.
DS-1815 is the modern version of it.
Yeah, and I asked, as soon as I got mine, when you were talking to the person who gave them to us, like, you know, what's the outlook?
Are you guys going to add data integrity features?
And, you know, don't talk about future products, blah, blah, blah.
Like, my request has been heard.
Thus far, I don't think anything has happened on that front, but I remain hopeful that at some point in the future they will come out with a new product or a new software update or something.
that adds data integrity features, especially on a NAS.
Like, I don't stress it IO-wise.
I'd be fine for it to spend its time and energy doing checksumming.
It wouldn't affect my use of it.
And it's not an issue of your request being heard.
We know that your requests have been heard by people at Apple for years about their file system.
I think Synology is slightly more motivated than Apple.
Because this is a common feature of NAS.
A lot of NAS products that are out there are built on ZFS Plus or some other checksum and file system, or at least have it as an option.
It's a good bullet point, right?
One of the features that people look for in NAS, this is one of them.
And I think
them not adding it is probably just a statement on the state of like linux zfs support or you know just how many ties their current software stack has with the their current file system and everything but anyway it could happen all right so do we want to cover a few more things about photos the app on os 10 uh same person more questions about uh aren't we concerned what
He wants to know what we're concerned about.
Aren't we concerned about the privacy aspects of using cloud sync with Apple's photos that app specifically about like what kind of security do they use to stop Apple employees or the NSA or whatever from viewing photos about your authorization now that they're all in the cloud.
Uh, and my answer to this one is similar to the answer about check summing.
Like, uh, I don't, I don't know what the situation is.
I assume the NSA can see all of my pictures.
I think it's a safe bet for everybody.
Uh, I assume that Apple is making a reasonable effort to keep them secure like they do with all their stuff.
But in the end, you are uploading all of your pictures to a server controlled by a corporation that you have no control over.
uh so i have no idea if they have access to my pictures uh i would recommend that if you have pictures that you don't want the world to see don't put them into a cloud photo syncing service period yeah that's basically my answer is uh i don't have any pictures that i would be that it would be a huge problem if somebody else saw them but if you did like the solution is like there's nothing you can do the solution is do not upload them to anybody
like that's it that's your own that's your only solution and even that like who knows they could be breaking into your computer and getting them whatever but there is no i don't think there's any sort of technological guarantee that at this point that a company was well-meaning as they might be could give that would make me think oh i previously didn't want to upload these pictures of my tax returns and social security number to an online photo service but now that i've heard this promise from this company i will totally do it it's just i you know
I won't.
I just you shouldn't do it.
There's nothing.
It's not their fault.
They could be 100 percent sincere that they are doing everything they can to protect your photos.
But I think history has shown that there are so many things between their promise and you, namely the Internet, that neither one of those parties has control over that the NSA perhaps does.
So just just don't upload it.
Yep.
Agreed.
All right.
And what about if you were to edit things in photos?
This is from Hampus.
Three questions in a row.
Don't you care about?
Aren't you worried about?
Aren't you concerned about?
Perhaps we are.
This is what, yeah.
Don't you care about your edits?
Like, so we talked about last time having a bunch of photos and they're all just a bunch of JPEGs or raw files or whatever in a big folder hierarchy.
So worst case scenario, you could extract all those files and
from this crazy bundle thing and just have a bunch of jpegs and folders like that by putting your your photos into this uh system whether it be iPhoto or the new photos application or anything else you're not really losing is because it's very good about preserving the originals and the originals are still there for you to get
You can always pull those originals out and go back to just a bunch of folders, right?
But what about your edits at that point?
What if you spent a long time editing your photos, adjusting everything where all those edits and adjustments are not in the photos that the whole point is it doesn't write them back to the photos.
It keeps the edit separate.
That's a feature.
But.
If you're saying that you can just get rid of a library and pull your photos, that you're losing all of your edits.
My answer to this is that I rarely edit my photos because I have no idea how to edit photos.
So that solves that problem.
I will crop photos.
Occasionally, I will move some sliders a tiny little bit.
But for the most part, I feel like I'm making the photos worse and not better.
And I just don't I just don't edit them.
And so it's not a problem for me.
If it's a problem for you, I'm not sure what the solution is, because I like the idea of never altering the originals.
Obviously, if they're raws like that's part of it.
But I don't know how you would save the edits in a way that is not specific to any one application that applies the edits.
Yeah, I mean, that's kind of the problem.
Like, you know, Adobe and their apps, they have, as part of the DNG format, they can embed the edits into the DNG files.
And so that's cool, because then you can bounce between any Adobe program and load up those edits when they're embedded in the file.
And that's kind of what I always wanted for so long, which is give me one file that has everything in it that I can move around in the file system and operate on as I need to.
The Apple ecosystem, as far as I know, has never had that.
But it's a hard problem to solve because what do you do if... Right now, they just moved from iPhoto and Aperture to New Photos app.
iPhoto, Aperture, and the New Photos app all have different editing controls with different capabilities...
that probably many of them use different algorithms from each other.
So you couldn't even say, like, you know, reduce highlights by 0.2.
You know, if you save that in the file, then the next version of the program might interpret that differently.
Or a different program 10 years from now will interpret that differently.
And it might not look the way you want.
So I think the only really sane long-term solution here is to either not care about your edits...
Or for the ones you edit, when you're going to move platforms, you're going to move editors to write the ones that you want to save as JPEGs or be doing that the whole time and just maintain separate copies that have the edits baked in if that's really important to you.
It is a very good question.
The problem is I don't think...
I don't think there's a good way to solve it that will actually last long-term and be cross-platform and cross-app.
For me, it's very similar to what John said, but just a little bit step further.
I do know how to edit photos a little bit.
And I can make them look better sometimes.
But I don't edit most of the photos I take.
Or if I do, it's like a really basic crop and maybe a very small adjustment to exposure and stuff.
But not heavy edits that are that important.
As time goes on...
I've gotten better at editing.
So if I was going to go back and pull up an old photo, I would probably want to redo my edits to it with the tools and techniques and abilities that I have today, rather than when I first did the edit five years ago when I didn't know about white balance.
you know like stuff like that um so this is it is a very valid question to ask of what do you do with your edits and moving between systems that is a very valid question to ask for a lot of people but it sounds like none of the three of us are the kind of people who worry that much about that and also a great solution i don't think exists
Well, you could always burn your edited copies to a new copy, like burn them to JPEG or something.
Right, that's what I was saying, yeah.
But I think that's the only solution.
I wouldn't say that's a good solution.
But do programs offer that?
I don't even know if the iPhoto even offered that as an option.
You could duplicate.
I don't know if it then stores it.
Yeah, you could duplicate, but I think what it did was duplicate the original, and now you just have the same thing.
You just have a second file where you could do a different set of edits, but still try to keep them separate.
Yeah, I don't know.
This is definitely like an advanced user feature that most people will not need or use or ever care about.
And so therefore, Apple's apps probably will cover it very poorly.
And if you really are very concerned about that kind of stuff, you probably are going to be wanting more control over your stuff anyway.
Like my wife, Tiff, she's a pro photographer, and she's very serious even about her personal photography.
And so...
She doesn't use any of these programs.
She uses Adobe Bridge and manages things in the file system.
And she is very, very happy with that.
She has no desire to go into one of these managed syncing library kind of programs.
She tried Aperture.
She tried Lightroom.
She hated them.
She's the kind of person who her edits are so much work and so important and she's so good at it that she wouldn't be able to do the kind of move where she would just throw away all the edits she's ever done.
But she does things manually.
So she has all her raw files.
And then when she does heavy edits, she saves them out as JPEGs.
And so it wouldn't even be a problem for her in her system.
So anyway, I think the answer is if you're a pro enough or if you're really into it enough to have a lot of edits, you probably need to come up with your own long-term solution to this problem.
We also got some feedback from Vincent Janjango.
I'm so sorry that I probably butchered that.
But he said that he forgot to tweet this after episode 114, but Flickr gives a terabyte of storage free and you can auto sync photos from your phone.
So that is something I don't think we covered when we were doing the rundown of competing photo services.
So it's probably worth taking note of that.
everybody forgets about flicker we forgot about them too they still exist they give you a terabyte of free storage and apparently the auto sync photos from your phone so uh badass on forgetting that they still exist and you know and it's not bad i have the new flicker whenever they did their big redesign
It was a pretty nice update.
And one terabyte free is nothing to sneeze at.
And I know a lot of people use it and enjoy it.
So don't forget it's there.
It's a thing.
Yep.
Still a thing.
Jiri Fiala, again, I'm so sorry I'm butchering all your names.
When you disable iCloud Photo Library, there's a grace period of 30 days.
You can't start from scratch within those 30 days.
My library has now 32 days in, 30,000 empty thumbnails.
No image can be opened.
I can't re-enable it.
It would just merge with this mess.
Yeah, this was a series of two tweets and it's like, well, if there's a 30-day grace period and you're on day 32, shouldn't the grace period be over?
A lot of people told me about this 30-day grace period.
Like if you turn iCloud Photo Library off, Apple doesn't just dump all your photos immediately.
They say, okay, well, I know you turned this thing off and you don't want to use it anymore, but we'll hang on to the photos that you have uploaded for 30 days just in case you change your mind, which is a nice safety feature.
So you don't like, whoops, I turned it off and it deleted all my photos and I actually don't have local copies on and don't have my local copies.
Like I have some copies are only in the cloud and then I turned it off and now they're all gone.
So they're saving it for 30 days.
But this makes it all the more difficult, it seems like, to do the big reset button of saying, look, I'm telling you, Apple, I've got them all on my local machine.
Please clear out your cloud and I want to start over.
And it's probably wise that that isn't easy to do because people don't actually know when they have all the photos in their computer.
And if you gave them the ability to do it, they would do it and then feel sad when they realize they're missing a year's worth of photos and blah, blah, blah.
But
you know it gets back to the same problem like how do you restore from backup how does it synchronize things a lot of people respond to that question as well showing us screenshots of what happens when you you know something gets screwed up and you go to a time machine backup and restore your photos library and
the new files plop onto your disk and then you launch the app and how does it how does it reconcile this you know this version on disk with what's in the cloud and apparently it throws up this big like repairing photo library thing and it basically just goes through there and reconciles and from the reports of people who have sent me pictures of their libraries doing this it seems to more or less work correctly albeit after
waiting for a really long time for it to go through all your photos that it will it'll figure things out somehow i mean i'm still wary about there being something screwed up somewhere and i would still like to have some way to reset everything even if it's through nine different uh dialogue boxes that all make me click on advanced and enter my admin password and you know swear oaths that i won't sue apple after you know whatever like
I would like there to be a way and I'm still a little bit worried about it.
I just hope I never have to find out how it behaves in that situation again.
And I basis on my experience, which I, you know, right or wrong, because obviously contacts does not use cloud kit or anything like that.
So it's very different in terms of code base, but contacts is such a small set of state.
I don't have a lot of contacts and just doing this with contacts, like drove me mad and took me hours.
So I really don't want to do it for 60,000 photos, whatever the hell I have.
All right.
We also got, with regard to me discussing LaunchD and Cron last episode for tickling a web server to say that, oh, Aaron's Mac has not died, which, by the way, it still has not died.
I'm speaking on it right now.
A lot of people suggested LaunchControl by SomaZone as another app to manage LaunchD jobs.
I've not tried it.
It's not something I'm really that particularly concerned about, but
A lot of people recommended it, so I have to assume it's probably pretty good.
And then our final piece of follow-up is from Enrico Susatio.
Oh, man.
Why did I jump on this sword tonight?
Maybe Susatio or Susatio?
Thank you, Marco.
See, somebody's saving me.
He said Microsoft is working on compiling Swift 2.
This is in regard to Project Islandwood.
I did get the chance to watch the video, and for the most part, it's what's been reported.
But toward the end, somebody in a question and answer session, imagine that, a question and answer session in Moscone.
Isn't that weird?
Anyway.
Please file a bug.
Yeah, exactly.
Somebody asked, hey, what are you doing about Swift?
And I don't recall if this was verbatim or not, but the quote was there were two guys that did the presentation and one of them said, what is the plans for adopting Swift into this as well?
We're going there.
It's just a day at a time.
This is all preliminary.
We're going to be struggling to get this out in time in the fall with VS Update 1, but that's just as doable.
And then the other guy said, I think what Jim meant to say is we're not making any comment on Swift today.
and uh this this back and forth actually happened between the two of them on a couple of topics but this is why apple doesn't have q a and to be fair this is probably why apple doesn't have q a but one of the reasons well one of the reasons that and they're secretive even when they don't need to be that in the app store yeah that too also to be fair have you ever been in a conference session where the q a was worth sitting through as an audience member
There's always at least one or two good questions.
I wish I could find this video.
I'm going to call on the listeners of ATP to help me here or tell me that I'm imagining things because I'm old.
But I seem to recall in one Q&A session long ago when Steve Jobs just came back, some angry person in the audience, and there were always angry people in the audience in the late 90s because there were Apple developers in the late 90s, and how could you not be angry, held up a Newton and said, what am I supposed to do with this?
to steve jobs after he had canceled the newton program and i think steve jobs is something like i'll tell you what you can do with it well am i imagining that did that really happen if so is it on video somewhere i have vhs tapes of wdc upstairs i haven't gone through them all i don't know where it is i can't find it maybe i imagined it either way it's a good story whether or not it's true
Do you still have a VCR?
I don't know.
Maybe in the attic.
There's a lot of things in the attic.
I was going to say, what is not in the attic?
Between you and Stephen Hackett, we could probably load any piece of software on any Mac that has ever existed ever.
All right, let's talk about something that's awesome.
Our first sponsor tonight is a new sponsor, although I believe we all know the people behind it.
It is Glide.
We'll see you next time.
This is a remarkable tool for building many common app types, especially content-focused apps, things like portfolios, showrooms, making your own news apps, magazines, interactive books, kids' books, mixed media apps for conferences, events, special interests, filmmakers, musicians, products, businesses, even schools and universities, apps for galleries, museums.
They even have iBeacon integration for museum stuff, which is pretty cool.
So much you can do with Glide.
And they're adding more capabilities at a remarkable pace.
So Glide's UK-based company, Glide Creations, has been building and using Glide professionally in their own consulting work for large corporate clients since 2012.
Now, three of their clients have even won Best of the App Store awards from Apple.
Wonders of the Universe is a really famous one you've probably heard of.
There's also Wonders of Life, the follow-up, and also Jim Dalrymple's The Loop magazine.
All of these apps were built with Glide.
They all won awards from Apple for how good they were.
Also, any of you who went to the Ool conference this year, the Ool conference app was also a Glide app.
That's where I saw the iBeacon integration, which was really cool.
I was very impressed with how great that app was overall.
So I blogged about Glide when it was announced.
This was before they approached us for the sponsorship.
I liked them that much.
And I honestly think it's going to be a really big deal.
The way I think about Glide is I called it the Squarespace equivalent for app creation.
It covers a lot of very common needs and very common tasks for app building with way less time and money than writing everything from scratch.
And the results are fantastic.
You don't even need to be a programmer to make a great app with Glide.
The source files are literally just like a bunch of folders on Dropbox with text or images or media files in them.
And then when you make changes, the app is updated live with those changes.
And you can do advanced logic.
There's scripting.
You can do custom behavior that way.
But you don't have to.
So it's a very big deal for people who want to focus on the content of their app, like if you're making a magazine like Jim, and not have to worry about the code behind it.
And of course, keeping up with Apple.
And Glide is a huge deal for app development consultants as well.
To me, this is a no-brainer if you're a consultant.
The market for custom coding, this is not going to go away.
This isn't going to kill your job.
But there's a massive number of projects that shouldn't be made from scratch or can't afford to be.
So if you're a consultant using Glide, you could offer clients fast, small-budget app creation far more efficiently and productively than before.
So all this is what's driving Glide's creators to bring this to Kickstarter and release it to the public.
It's almost done.
Their campaign has already succeeded.
See, Glide believes everybody should be able to afford to make their own app.
And so that's why they went to Kickstarter to make this happen, basically be like a big capital raise and pre-order to get them to be able to release this app to the public.
So there's only a few more days left to support or pre-order Glide on Kickstarter and be one of the very first people to have access to it.
I mean, to me, if you're a consultant, this is a pretty big competitive advantage to have a tool like this.
So I recommend checking it out.
Go to createglide.com slash ATP to see more info or pre-order it.
Thank you very much to Glide for sponsoring our show.
Yeah, we all are friends with the people that make Glide.
They're like the nicest people in the world, too.
Oh, God, so nice.
But even if we weren't friends with those people, genuinely, this stuff is amazing.
And Chris Harris, who is, I think, CEO of Glide...
um he did a demo with me a long time ago now probably a year plus ago of how glide works and this was via facetime when he was in london i was in in the states and just watching things happen in dropbox and then in the app changing moments thereafter it was mind-blowing so truly this is amazing stuff and if and if this is at all interesting to you i highly suggest checking it out it is very very cool
And they even like they think of so many little details.
I mean, the things I've seen them do, even like you said, the Dropbox.
So they read the files off Dropbox, but they don't host them there.
They host them on their own EC2 stuff on Amazon Web Services because they want to make sure that Dropbox goes down, your app doesn't go down.
So they actually copy it over to their stuff after they read it off Dropbox.
So they even thought of that.
So these are great people.
I'm pretty sure I also still owe Chris a beer from Ool.
But yeah, these are great people.
And yeah, seriously, check out Glide and hurry up because you're running out of time.
All right.
So we have a very important but fairly serious topic.
We have some real time follow up.
And that is that Evan Hindra in the chat has drawn you riding hops trying to stave off the raccoons.
Kind of punted on the face there, though.
He just kind of drew a circle and wrote Marco on it.
I do appreciate the ATP shirt, though.
Yep.
Oh, I didn't even notice that.
That's a good call.
He's got the hose, the hose, the pathetic hose with a little puddle of water.
Yep.
He's got the duck.
He's got the raccoon running away.
Yep.
The Apple Watch.
It's pretty good, especially given the time constraints.
Yeah.
I'm impressed.
Ditto.
Very impressed.
All right.
So I was being slightly snarky about the seriousness of that.
But all kidding aside, we do really have a serious topic that we should discuss.
And we wanted to make sure we discussed it in the main part of the show this week.
And this all started with a tweet from John.
So, John, do you want to kick us off?
Sure.
This was last month-ish, end of last month.
I don't remember what motivated this, but, you know, we're just...
No time like the president to just tweet and ask this question.
My tweet read, women and girls who listen to ATP, colon, what do you think we could do to get more women and girls to listen to ATP?
Kind of wordy to go women and girls, but I was trying to be inclusive in this thing.
But I was anyway, that's who I'm addressing the question to.
That was the question.
And you can we'll put the link to the tweet in the show notes.
You can look at all the replies.
There were a lot of replies, a lot of good replies.
I plan to write a blog post about this.
I tried to write a post about this.
I had a lot of difficulty because I thought it would be straightforward, but it ended up being fairly long and kind of boring.
So I figure we can make an attempt to talk about it on the show.
It'd be nice to have a blog post that people could reference.
Maybe I'll still try to make one.
uh but anyway what i was going to do in the blog post was explain what i felt like i couldn't explain on twitter which is why if you look at that giant thread you don't see a lot of replies from me to people mostly i was just asked a question and i was getting input right so i was reading all the responses but not really replying to all of them mostly because i didn't feel like i needed to reply to all those like i asked a question and people give their opinions and i listened to them right um
But it does, I think, require some explanation.
A lot of people had legitimate questions about it.
And that's what I was trying to address in my blog post.
So I think I'll probably start with those.
The first thing are like the sort of the premises or the assumptions of all of this.
My, the, the premise of this question is that I think not a lot of women listen to ATP and many people will say, how do you know that?
Do you take surveys of your listeners?
No, we don't.
You're basing it on t-shirt sales.
Yeah, kind of, but you know, women can buy men's shirts and sometimes we don't even know what the breakdowns are.
Uh,
we base it on the names of people in who send feedback the names of people who tweet the avatars on people's twitter accounts like we have some inputs into this system like we're not taking a completely wild guess uh but the information we have is admittedly imperfect what if 99.9 percent of the people listen are women and they never write because women never like to write into the show for some reason right but and all we get is feedback from men and all we sell our mail that would be its own issue worth exploring
It's conceivable that we could be totally wrong, but I'm going to say that given the best information available to us, I would put money on the fact that mostly men listen to ADP.
Certainly the majority, perhaps the vast majority.
I don't know if you two agree with that.
Do you get that feeling?
Absolutely.
No, it's just like what you said.
The few inputs that we do have with feedback and things like that, it certainly does suggest that it's mostly men.
Right.
So that's what we're starting from.
If we're wrong about that, then this whole thing is pointless and we're barking up the wrong tree.
But I would put money on it that the vast majority of the people listening to the show are men.
My second assumption is that of all the potential people in the world who might enjoy this show, if you say, just put all those people on the board.
Those are all the people who potentially might enjoy this show.
what percentage of the men who might enjoy the show are currently listening to it and what percentage of the women who might enjoy the show are currently listening to it i think we have a larger proportion of the men who might enjoy the show listening to it than we do the women so if we're going to grow our audience which i would like to do and here's the blog post is like suffice it to say that we want people to listen to the show i don't know if you need to say that but like why are you doing this why do you care
I, at least personally, want people to listen to the show because it's gratifying when lots of people... I don't know if I need to explain this to people, but it's one of the premises.
Listeners equals good, right?
If you want to grow the audience, you feel like there is an untapped market of women who...
Say we're getting like 1% of the men who might enjoy the show are listening to it, right?
I think like 0.0001% of the women who might enjoy the show are listening to it.
So that seems like where we should go.
Because if we can get 1% of the men and 1% of the men, it's a big boost.
But maybe 1% of the men, 1% of any group is our cap.
So I feel like that's where we would want to go to grow the audience first.
Um, and there are other reasons to like, you, you know, all the other reasons you hear people talk about, but what people don't talk about is like, why, you know, why does diversity matter?
Why do you care how many men or women listen to the show?
Like there are other really good reasons that many people will talk to you about, but I'm appealing to people's sense of like, just logic.
Like we want listeners.
If, if women are not listening to the show in much greater proportions than men, even though the women who we think would like the show, um,
that's that's bad we're not that is an untapped market we want those people to listen to right that's you know ignoring everything else which are very important points about like we should be encouraging women to technology and because there's a culture of keeping them away and so on it's like even just setting that aside and if you think that is not important or whatever just purely by the numbers i think it can appeal to anybody and say look you know you're not there's an audience out there that
That we feel like is not listening to the show in much larger proportions than another audience.
And I want to figure out why and change it.
Right.
So that's that's the premise of this question.
That's why I ask.
And why did I ask the women and girls who do listen to ADP?
Well, I can't ask somebody who doesn't.
listen to ATP because they don't know what the show is about and the people who do were once women who didn't and basically they have the experience to say I was once a woman who didn't listen to ATP and then I listened to it and now how did you go from a non-listener to a listener and you're listening to it now what you think we're doing that might be keeping women away from it or making it seem like the show is not welcoming to them and it's not something they might be interested in and so on and so forth or I did listen and now I don't and here's why right because this was done on Twitter like I mean you would assume you know there's
Basically, I don't have any way to communicate with the women who don't follow me on Twitter and don't listen to the show or whatever.
So I did what I could.
Right.
But I specifically was addressing that because I wasn't particularly interested in hearing all the things that men thought we could do to get more women to listen to ADP, even though they may be entirely right.
uh i feel like i have the male perspective we three of us collectively have the male perspective down pretty well here i was looking for some uh you know different input so that that is a very long-winded setup for uh for this question you guys want to add anything to that because i didn't consult either of you on this question this is on my twitter account not the atp twitter account i just threw this question out there i don't know how you guys felt about or if it's a thing that you're thinking about or whether you agree this was a good thing to ask or have anything to add to my premises here
I don't think I have anything to add other than that.
I believe Marco and I both pretty much immediately retweeted it.
And I think one of us retweeted it from the show account just as quickly.
So I'm pretty sure I speak for Marco in saying that we are completely behind this line of thought.
And I'm very curious to hear what it is we can do about the women that don't listen, I should say.
And we definitely had some interesting feedback, which I suspect we're about to go into.
Yeah.
So before we talk about all the different, you know, how we feel about them, let's just go through a lot of responses and let's go through some of them categorically.
Frequent suggestions.
This is not really ordered by frequency, but I guess I probably wrote them down in the order they started coming in.
Have women guests on the show.
have women hosts on the show do a host swap with other women tech podcasts where we you know someone from a a woman from another tech podcast goes over here and one of us goes over there talk about women in tech topics which we're kind of doing now and we have kind of done in the past um read feedback from identifiably female listeners on the episodes uh
stay away from male focused ads that are alienating, uh, ask women to try the show.
This was an interesting suggestion that I would not have, would not have guessed came.
Someone said, you're not going to get women to listen to the show unless you ask women to listen to the show, which sounds stupid, but is totally true.
And you know, like you have to ask for it.
You have to say, Hey, are you a woman interested in technology?
We have a podcast.
You might like, like actually address them specifically.
Um,
uh lots of mentions of like word of mouth as in like how they came to know the show like they heard from a friend who heard from a friend uh talk about women who are in technology talk about things they're doing uh you know companies applications whatever then you know conference talks whatever the things that women are actually doing in tech talk about them the same way we talk about everything else right uh
Uh, their blogs link to them on Twitter, blog them, retweet them, follow them on Twitter, all that stuff.
Sponsor, uh, things that are focused on women like app camp for girls, which I think the ATP account and us have, uh, retweeted and posted about it many times, but other similar types of things that are trying to get more women into technology.
Let's see what else we have here.
One specific piece of feedback was about how she thought that our show from the outside looks like it's just a bunch of dudes talking about tech, which I'm going to say that it pretty much is.
But anyway, this is her words, not mine.
You just look like another group of dudes talking about techs, but it's really much more.
I think they mean the parts where we talk about Marco swatting raccoons in his backyard.
But yeah, the idea is that the optics from the outside is that the show looks like it's a boring show about tech.
But we do kind of cover...
slightly broader topics maybe I don't know and that you know that getting that image out there getting that message out there could make the show more appealing and I think that's it for the categories of feedback unless you remember any other particular large categories that you saw going by
i think you got i mean i think the the biggest one by far is female host slash guest and then i think second biggest was probably the um advertiser thing yeah and all these suggestions i another reason i didn't respond to them on twitter was because like this is this is a trap that you know it has many names i like male answer syndrome but there are many different names like
It's not an invitation to debate all of these things.
Like if you ask a question like this in Twitter, your instinct and my instinct and the instincts of many people on Twitter, not just men, but everybody who's kind of is to is to answer them, to say, I think you should do X. And then to answer by saying, well, we can't do X because of this or we don't want to do X or we shouldn't do X or I disagree that X would help.
Like, and that, believe me, that instinct is strong, right?
And that instinct is very strong because even though I invited the question, every one of these responses is like, well, I have a reason why, you know, you know, you get defensive, right?
And so I fought that instinct, I think, pretty successfully and did not answer that every single, you know, because basically...
What it comes down to is I think every single one of these responses is right for the person who answered.
Right.
No one person who answered represents all women, but they represent themselves and they give a perspective that we don't have.
So I tried to just take them as what they were.
Now, realistically speaking, we are not going to do all of these things.
And in particular, I want to focus on the idea of having women hosts or having women guests.
Host is the easiest one.
I think that all the people who said we should have women hosts because it would get more limited are 100% right.
But at a certain point...
You're not getting more people to listen to your show.
You're making a new show that is more appealing to women.
And I totally believe that that show would be more appealing to women.
But that doesn't mean I want to change the show that I'm currently on.
I think the women audience is underserved.
I think shows like Rocket, like there should be 50 more of those because this is an underserved audience, right?
There are as many people as a million shows with a bunch of guys talking about tech.
But we are one of those shows.
I like the three of us on the show.
I think this is the show.
I recognize that we are sacrificing some audience by doing that.
So the people who made that suggestion are not wrong.
But speaking for myself, I don't want to change the host lineup of the show.
yeah i mean that i i'm totally with you on that i mean it is a great suggestion that is a big problem that we have three guys here but we have never had guest hosts we don't have like a regular like our format is the three of us talking it is like it is not a guest show we you know we've occasionally had times like where my wife tiff has popped in during the after show to talk about games with you guys people married to us do not count as as either host or guests but like
But that's, you know, and that's even that's only like in the after show.
And it's like it's like a fun occasional thing.
It's not like a regular feature of the show.
Like the show is not regularly having different people in here.
If it were and like like I know John Gruber for the talk show got criticized initially.
I don't know, maybe a year ago when people started becoming a lot more aware of this issue because the talk show is that format show.
It does have guests every week.
And since then, I think he took that to heart.
And if you look at the list of hosts since about a year ago, there's a lot more women on that list.
And it's not even yet, but you can see the progression is going in the right direction.
So I think it does make sense for shows that have rotating hosts or rotating guests to really obey that and to really pay attention to their gender breakdown and their breakdown in all sorts of diversity categories, honestly.
But for our show, I think we can safely say... We can safely say we appreciate that feedback, but...
Our show has always just been the three of us.
It isn't like we're having different men every week.
We don't have anybody else on the show.
Two things about that.
That feedback is kind of disheartening because it shows how underserved this market is.
The way they feel like they can get a show that appeals to them better is asking for changes in existing shows.
It's just like
It's like all the, the, uh, the female gamers out there begging for, you know, female avatars and protagonists in games.
They just want to see themselves represented and they, they, it does not enough out there.
It's an underserved market.
Like, and so they have to take the things that they do like that are currently not catering to their needs and say, could you change the thing you're doing to cater to my needs?
Because I'm so massively underserved that I can't go elsewhere for something better than this.
I feel like there should be more podcasts with three ladies talking about tech, uh,
But unfortunately, there aren't.
And as I said, this feedback is correct.
They are right that this would make our show more appealing.
But I just feel like it would be a different show.
And we're not doing that show, but more people should.
And that's also, you know, like, you know, we don't want to be condescending here and say, well, women would listen only if there's another woman on the show, because that's not true.
No, but we did get that feedback a lot.
Some people also said, I like the show the way it is.
You don't need to add any women.
None of these single women represent all women.
They're just voicing their own opinions.
But that's why I asked, because you want to hear other people's opinions.
And we did get a lot of people who said the show would be more appealing if there was a woman guest.
We got fewer people who said, I like the lineup exactly the way it is.
There are other things that you can do to make it more appealing.
But I agree that the people who ask for that are correct.
I just feel like it's not a thing we're going to do, which is disappointing for us and disappointing for them.
But that's that's how that one comes down.
And the second thing on this, you talked about, like you mentioned different diversity in different aspects.
That's another question that I tried to get in my blog post, and it was very difficult to explain.
Why are you concentrating on women?
Why not, you know, people of color or, you know, different sexual orientations or geographies or language or any other thing like that?
I think we're terrible in all those categories in terms of in terms of how our breakdown are in terms of underserved market.
But here's the thing.
Women aren't a minority.
They're half the planet.
So, again, like get deal with the biggest problem first.
Our massive gender disparity, our massive underrepresentation that we feel exists based on the data that we have is not for a minority group.
It's for half the planet.
Right.
So address the biggest problem first.
And I feel like this is our biggest problem.
I feel like all of the problems are also there.
But this is the biggest bang for your buck.
This is the worst thing we have going on here.
And I think all those other things we should be definitely aware of.
What are we doing to alienate all those other groups that are minorities, that are marginalized, that we should be trying not to do anything that excludes them?
Android users?
Yeah.
Well, yeah.
Anyway, that's not sort of a category.
That's a choice.
Anyway, so I mean, that is worth addressing.
That is a real thing.
But just like...
it the fact the very fact that all those things come up in the same conversation is women it's like women are not a minority i was trying to look at the stat i think they're more than half the planet by like a tiny little bit but anyway uh they are a minority in tech and that's the problem we're sort of trying to address here
So what do we do about sponsors?
Because one of the pieces of feedback that I saw most often, other than you should have a woman host or you should have women guests, the next bit of feedback that I think was the next most popular was, well, you should really try to stay away from advertisers that are clearly just for men.
And I don't mean the hair coloring.
I mean designed for men.
I have used that.
Yeah.
I'm not proud of it.
Don't use it anymore, but I did use it.
That's big of you, Marco.
I'm very proud of you.
Not recommended.
Man, we're getting deep into accidental analog right now.
Mike Hurley's going to be so upset at us.
But yeah, we did get a lot of feedback of, well, you should really have sponsors that are more... Is unisex?
Unisex is either gender.
Is that right?
I always get it backwards.
I would say gender neutral.
Thank you.
That's a much better way of phrasing it.
Gender neutral advertisers.
And the three of us were talking about this very briefly via iMessage before the show.
And in our recollection at the time, and maybe there's others that we're not thinking of, the only sponsor that I think we've run, or at least recently, that is clearly not gender neutral is Harry's, which is shaving stuff.
And in actuality, that could very well be used for women, for the parts of their bodies that they shave.
But certainly the ad read, if nothing else, is more aimed at men.
And maybe it's as simple as just trying to be more inclusive on the ad reads, which is another thing that the three of us have talked about recently.
So I'm not sure what the right answer is on that.
And I think, Marco, you especially had some thoughts on this, if you want to kind of take the mic.
Yeah, I mean, so I think this is a valid point.
You know, the idea that, you know, again, like it's not like women will run away if we do a read for products that are aimed at men, but it certainly contributes to an overall feeling of, you know, maybe this isn't, maybe unwelcomeness or like not fitting in or this isn't meant for you.
Like I've heard all those things from people who have sent this kind of feedback and I get that.
I understand that.
The reality is we have very few sponsors that are gender specific.
And so it wouldn't be a huge deal to stop having them.
And I mean, the list, the only list of recurring, but the only recurring sponsors that we've had that I can think of off the top of my head are Harry's and need, you know, need even now has foremost, like they have other businesses that are not just for men.
Um, um,
So really, it's Harry's.
We're really just talking about Harry's.
And as you said, Harry's... And I did some research to see how big of a problem is this with Harry's.
And yeah, there's no question it's aimed at men.
But they sell razors that are male-styled and definitely aimed at men.
But women have used them and have blogged about using them.
And they work on women.
There's nothing about a razor that makes it just for a man.
Women can use them too.
So there's marketing choices.
There's stylistic choices.
There's language choices.
Anyway...
But if it came down to us telling Harry's, look, we'd love to keep advertising you, but we want to keep everything gender neutral now, so call us back when you have a women's option or something, or when it's no longer so male-specific.
I'm fine with that.
I think that would be a good idea.
This is an easy one to solve.
This does not require changing the show.
This requires changing two sponsors to basically say, sorry, we're going to have this new policy now.
We hope to work with you in the future if we can work this out.
So I think that's an easy, easy little hanging fruit to change that.
I don't care at all.
I don't think the language of the sponsor reads is itself a major part of the problem.
I've actually edited the reads.
A couple weeks ago, we did a spot for Jack Threads, which was very male focused.
And I very heavily edited the read.
And to remove things that were obviously men in a style that I thought was not appropriate for a gender-neutral show.
So I edited the script.
No big deal.
Every script I get to be more in our style or to be easier to read or to say things that I think should be said and delete things I think shouldn't be said.
So editing scripts is no big deal.
But I think the script is not the problem.
The product is the problem.
What's being advertised is the problem here if you're going to make this argument.
So it doesn't matter how I say it.
It matters... Are we advertising products that are clearly aimed just at men?
And what does that suggest to the women in our audience who are listening?
And so yeah, my argument is... My idea was, why don't we just drop these handful of sponsors that do this?
It would...
It's never fun to drop a sponsor.
I feel bad.
It could hurt relationships.
It's inconvenient for them if they were counting on you, but I'd be perfectly fine to do this.
Now, when this came up on IM, I disagreed because I don't think the problem is necessarily that there's a line of products that are aimed at men because these are men's shaving supplies.
First of all, the reality is the most of our audience is men.
So this is, you know, advertisers want to have ads targeted at the people they think is listening.
And I thought the problem was basically having to do with the reads because it's okay to have a product focused on
just ios users just just men just women just people in a particular state just people who uh live a lot of our stuff is just for people in the u.s for example because a lot of people these companies as we hear don't ship overseas right so and we hear about that too right just for people in the u.s or whatever i think the the problem actually is with how the reads can be done because
just because you have a product for men doesn't mean the ad read has to be targeted at men and that sounds crazy it's like what do you mean of course has to be targeted it's a product for men an example someone gave me on twitter is what if you were selling uh some sort of you know whether it be shaving or anything else product it was just for women a leg shaving razor with the handle for just for for shaving women's legs or something like whatever it is or like you know some kind of product that that uh only or mostly women use
If we did that ad read, the inclination would be the fairly shameful inclination.
But I imagine it would be to pitch it as in like, oh, like buy this for your wife or girlfriend or whatever.
As in, you know, assuming that our audience is mostly men, which again, we think it is.
And just saying, well, you know, of course, only men listen to this dude tech podcast.
So let me if I advertise if it's a woman's product, we have to do the ad read differently.
But if it's men's product, we say, hey, you will like this.
You as in the male thing.
And I think when you do, and as you said, you've adjusted the language, when you do an ad read for a woman's product, you should pitch it as if the person listening might be a man or a woman.
And it's not saying the woman is going to use it for themselves.
Buy this for the man in your life.
Maybe try it yourself.
But if it's totally focused to be a man's product...
Like, again, assume all our listeners are 100% women.
How would the ad read be different?
If it would be different, then probably the ad read is making people feel excluded because we're all used to living in a world where there are certain products aimed just at men or just at women, right?
We always see ads on television or in the newspapers or whatever and billboards that are specifically aimed at men or at women for whatever reasons you want to say that these products are culturally mostly for men or mostly for women.
None of us feel like we get offended by that unless we listen to or watch the show and every single ad was like, you should buy this for yourself.
And it's a woman focused product.
I'm like, but I'm not a woman.
Why do you keep saying you?
It's not me.
Like you never you never pitch this product to me as if you could buy this as a gift for a woman that, you know, it's always you buy this for yourself.
And it makes you feel like, geez, maybe I shouldn't be watching this program because all these ads for women's stuff are telling are telling me that I should buy it for myself.
But don't they know I'm not a woman?
It seems like maybe this is not the place for me.
So I think the existence of gender-specific products is perfectly fine, especially if they're not an overwhelming majority.
Like, if all of our ads were men-only products, that's a big problem.
But if one out of all of our sponsors, all recurring sponsors, is men-only, I don't see it as a big deal.
But I think the ads, the reads themselves, have to be done in a way that's not like, hey, you should buy this for yourself.
Because that's excluding people.
Like, the existence of the ad is not excluding people.
I think the way the ad is pitched is excluding people.
And I think the fact that our audience is mostly men is the symptom.
Like that's, you know, that is the root problem here.
And the symptom is the fact that advertisers who advertise things for only men want to advertise on our program.
If we got our audience to 50-50, maybe Harry's will be less interesting in advertising with us.
And that's fine.
But like they're interested now because they think they think most of our listeners are men and they're probably right.
And that's the root problem we're trying to solve.
I'm not entirely sure getting rid of that ad would change the gender disparity.
I think it just needs to be presented.
And my idea for the past Harry's read was we should read just what I said.
Do the Harry's read as if 100 percent of our listeners are women.
And see if anyone notices.
Like, see if people get confused and go, I didn't understand that ad.
Wasn't it for men's products?
Why were you advertising it to women?
And we said, oh, we'll just assume 100% of the people listening to the show are women.
Because, you know, tech podcast listeners are mostly women.
We didn't get to that before.
We did the Harry's ad read before I communicated that idea to Marco.
But I thought that would be a fun thing to do.
But that just shows like the fact that that doesn't the fact that's not how it's done shows that like everyone is sort of tacitly agreeing that like, yeah, well, we just assume most of the listeners are women.
Right.
And that's the problem.
That's the problem we're trying to solve.
So I'm I'm not entirely opposed to ditching Harry's, but I think that's like it can be done in a way that is more inclusive than it is done now.
I agree with most of what you said.
The problem is most of the examples of the negative things that you used are things that we don't actually have in our ads, things that we don't say, things that aren't in our ads, aren't in our scripts, aren't in our remarks usually even.
Most of them are pretty neutral, but we never make the explicit pitch to...
you should buy this for for some man that you know for your father for your your friend who's a guy for your husband for your boyfriend we never make that pitch it's never you know because that would that would be explicitly saying i am addressing now you woman listening to this program we never do that it's always you should buy this for yourself it's great it's much better than what you've currently been buying it's all about you you you you are a man
never the other side.
And so I think that balances off.
Even though you is generic and not gender specific, when it's a male-focused product, we never go the other way in any degree.
I could see that.
But to me, I think the solution there is...
not to have to address that issue either direction.
Like, why do we need to advertise products on our show that are only useful to men or only aimed at men?
But those products exist.
Like, would you reject a product that was focused only on women?
Like, I mean, it's the same.
There's just some products like that.
And again, who says it's only like, oh, we don't get pantyhose.
Who says men can't wear pantyhose?
They totally can.
But culturally speaking, percentage wise, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, for the most part, et cetera, et cetera.
Lots of caveats, so on and so forth.
That's a whole separate culture issue.
But the fact is, there are products that are more often bought by women and more often bought by men.
They're not men only and not women only.
We don't want to be excluding from the definitions.
But we all know what we mean about these.
You know, if Harry's Harry's on their websites, it's men's shaving products.
That's what they're going for.
a product focused specifically on the needs of either men or women and whatever particular things they want to do i think you should have both of those things is it shame we never we will never be able to get women products for women's things even because if we can't get more women listening to the pros to the show so that's what we're trying to do but i think if we ever got the 50 distribution i would gladly take a
quote unquote, women only advertiser any day of the week.
And just as much as I think it would take a men only one.
If it takes ditching the men only sponsors to get more women to listen, I'd also be willing to do that.
But I feel like and some people also reply to this, like, there's no need to ditch the Harry spots, just be more inclusive in the reads.
But you just said the problem is when you go to the site, it's all about men.
Right, but it's the reads.
The product is for men, but women buy products that are for men as gifts all the time.
Well, but see, I pulled up the Harry's read when we started discussing this, and I pulled up my script that I read when we do these ads, and there's nothing in it that presupposes that you are a man directly.
I mean, the only thing is the absence of something like, oh, get this for a man in your life.
I don't say anything like that.
But I also don't say get this for a woman in your life.
It's like I don't... The ad does not specify gender.
It does.
I agree.
It has the built-in assumption that this ad I'm reading saying, you know, you should go get this.
You can do this.
Yeah.
You've been annoyed by buying razors the normal way.
You should get this because it's better.
Yeah.
But women have also been annoyed by buying raises the normal way.
Looking at this, this is what I'm saying.
I don't think the script that I actually use in practice for these kind of ads, I don't think the script is really the problem.
I think what is being advertised, if this is going to be a problem at all, if you can say we want to avoid advertisers that might suggest a male focus or a male bias or male-only stuff...
I think the issue is the advertisers themselves because, you know, we can edit the scripts to be neutral or if they aren't already.
But, you know, if if a bunch of women go to the Harry's site and it says these are for men.
Well, that's why if you said buy this for the man in your life, you'd be explicit about the fact that this is a men's product or that's how they frame it.
And women can use it, too.
But this this is their this company is making product that they're aiming specifically at men.
And it might be a good gift idea because if you know someone who has problems and always complaining about their shaving situation, you could get this for them.
Like trying to be inclusive with the read is more than just leaving it neutral because neutral plus men's product equals not neutral.
But if you're if you try to go in the other direction, make sure that people are included in it.
Like and the same thing with, you know, to balance things out, if we could get a woman only sponsor, that would be great.
But I don't know if we could do that with the audience breakdown that we all feel like we have.
See, I would say that the script editing is necessary but not sufficient to solve this problem.
Well, I mean, you know, like, that's possible as well.
I just feel like I would rather add sponsors than remove, you know what I mean?
Because Harry's is, like, the reason we keep doing Harry's reads is because it's a good product.
And, you know, people don't know this, but we are fairly picky about the sponsors that we take for the show.
If we don't think it's actually a decent product, we don't take it.
But on the other hand...
Of all the sponsors that we have, we have, I don't know, maybe 10 regular recurring sponsors most of the time.
I think only one or two are gender specific.
We're a tech show.
We're not a health and beauty show.
We're not a fashion show.
We're a tech show.
And tech, as much as it often isn't, tech should be gender neutral.
And so most of our sponsors, like Squarespace and Hover and Fracture, these are all totally ignoring gender.
It doesn't matter what gender you are to use Glide.
I think there are enough people out there.
It's a tech show.
Most of our sponsors are tech sponsors.
You can say it's kind of a fluke that we have sponsors like Harry's and Warby Parker.
Because we're not a show about shaving our glasses.
We have a certain kind of audience, but it is a lot more focused to run a tech ad on our show than to run an ad for anything outside of tech.
Because you at least know that we have this many people who care a lot about tech.
I agree with you that in theory, the gender of ads shouldn't matter.
And it can be attempted to be neutralized or at least not always on one side of it.
But we're a tech show.
We only have a couple of advertisers who are gender-specific.
We don't necessarily need to maintain that status quo.
What I'm curious to hear, and I can't pass judgment on this because I'm not a woman and so I don't really know, but what I'm curious to hear is, is it better to just quietly not have male-focused sponsors?
Or is it better, like John was saying, to specifically call out
This is for the women that are listening.
Get this for the man in your life or even get this for yourself.
I feel like maybe it would almost be more inclusive to bend over backwards and say that this ad, which ostensibly is for men, we're making it for women because we want to be inclusive.
But I don't know.
I'm not a woman.
I don't know how that feels.
A lot of the things that you do for groups that are marginalized is to... You're trying to make them feel welcome, right?
And neutral things like Squarespace don't...
push them away but also don't make them feel particularly welcome the best case would be ads focused on women because that would really make them feel this is a product for you we were advertising this at you this is a thing for you we're talking to you now right that would be best second best i feel like is if there is an ad that may feel alienating
to try to be inclusive in that read to say, even though it sounds like this is not for you, this show is still for you.
And in fact, I'm talking to you as if as if you as if 100% of the audience is women.
And I'm going to pitch this product for men to you, specifically you, the listener as a woman.
This is kind of the same thing as using, you know, she pronouns in all of your places.
Like, why is, you know, why is it she all the time?
Well, you're trying to balance the scales of the massive inequity in the tech world.
Throw a little pronouns in one direction.
There's no reason to complain.
And it's more inclusive because people would say, you know, oh, I'm used to every single example being a he.
Why don't I?
And I'm as guilty as anyone of constantly using he, you know.
why what people take note that someone something used she in this example isn't that interesting it may you know like i would i wish that was done all the time that you're trying it is such a tiny drop in the bucket against all the other things that have stacked against them the least the very literally the very least that you can do is try to make things like that more equitable dropping the ad entirely would also kind of make it more equitable but then how do you how do you call out to them i don't know
Right.
That's what I'm saying.
That's a really good summary of what I was trying to say.
Speaking of advertisers, it's been a while, so we should probably move along with the advertising part by talking about ads.
Yeah.
And we have more to say on this topic, but I think we can end the ad part of it with a gender-neutral ad for our friends at Hover.
Hover is the best way to buy and manage domain names.
You can get 10% off your first purchase by going to hover.com and using this week's promo code.
Sorry, Casey.
Glass half empty.
Oh, is that about Aaron's poor MacBook Air that went in the drink?
A little bit.
Glass half empty.
When you have a great idea, you want a great domain name that's catchy and memorable.
Hover gives you exactly what you need to find the perfect domain so you can get started actually working on your idea.
Hover gives you easy to use, powerful tools to buy and manage domains so anyone can do it.
The support team is always ready if you need a hand and they are known for their no wait, no hold, no transfer phone support.
So if you want, you can email them or whatever, but you can also just call them during business hours and a real live human being picks up the phone immediately and is willing and able to help you.
So in less than five minutes, you can go to hover.com, find the domain name you want, and get it up and running.
All you got to do is search for a few keywords, and Hover will show you the best available options across all the domain extensions out there.
And believe me, there are a lot of domain extensions out there now.
If you haven't searched for domain recently, oh my god, you have a lot...
A lot of new, mostly terrible, but sometimes good options for the various TLDs you can stick on the end of them.
So now you can get glasshalfempty.plumbing.
That's probably out there somewhere.
Anyway, if you've ever used any other domain registrars, you probably have had, at best, a mediocre experience.
Many of them are... This is not a great business, usually.
It's unpleasant, often.
It's also very complicated usually at most other places to just buy what you actually need.
Let me just register a domain.
I don't need a bunch of add-on services.
I don't need a bunch of stuff to protect me from spammers.
Shouldn't that just come with it?
Just get me a name with reasonable settings, please.
This is what Hover specializes in.
They don't try to upsell you with all sorts of crazy stuff.
So for example, the Protect Me From Spammers thing, the Whois privacy, that just comes with Hover names.
They just give you that because they know, why would you not want that?
So that's just included, right?
So instead of charging you for anything separately that should have been there, they just include it.
You also get a smart control panel.
It's very well designed, if I can say.
Most domain registrars are... You would not call them good-looking sites.
And the management panels usually get even worse.
And Hover's the opposite.
Hover's great.
They also offer a free valet transfer service.
So if you have domains somewhere else and you want to transfer them into Hover, you can do it yourself.
That's cool.
It's a pretty annoying and error-prone process to transfer domains between registrars.
Hover has a service valid transfer where if you want them to you can give them the login to your old registrar and they will log into it and do the transfer for you and it doesn't matter how many names if you have one name if you have a thousand names they'll do it you can skip all the hassle and of course all the errors that you might make moving like the DNS settings which is always tricky anyway
Hover also has great email solutions.
If you want to host email there, $20 a year gets you a fully functional email account with 10 gigs of storage.
$29 a year gets you the big mailbox, which is a full terabyte of email, which is my personal hell.
But if you actually need a full terabyte of email storage, they have that for $29 a year.
If you just need email forwarding on a domain, if you already have hosting somewhere else, you just want to receive mail at that domain,
Five bucks a year.
You can keep using your existing host.
It's great.
They have all these options.
Anyway, check it out.
Hover.com.
The best way to buy a Manix domain names.
Use code GLASSHALFEMPTY for 10% off your first purchase.
Thanks a lot to Hover for sponsoring once again.
All right.
So...
Finishing the gender discussion, well, it's never finished, but continuing the gender discussion for this show, I think it's worth talking about the content of the show.
So I asked Tiff, my wife, earlier this evening, I said we were going to be talking about this, and I asked her, what does she think?
What can we do to address this problem from her point of view?
And what I've heard from a lot of people, and Tiff told me this, and we heard from a lot of people, even people in the chat have said this in the last half hour that we've been talking about this,
What I keep hearing is we have a lot of listeners who have wives or girlfriends or who are themselves women who listen for the more human general parts of the show but don't like or don't listen for the in-depth programming stuff.
And this is certainly an issue worth talking about, because it's not that there are no women programmers, but as we know, the gender breakdown in engineering jobs is really nowhere near even.
So...
This is a bigger problem.
I will note that we often get that exact same feedback from men who are not programmers who listen to the show, but I would imagine it's proportionally... We keep hearing this as one of the reasons why women don't like our show or don't listen to all of our show or don't listen to our show consistently.
Do you guys... I mean, to some degree, we can say, like, well...
Just like we said earlier, the format of the show is the three of us.
We don't have guest hosts.
We could look at this topic and we can say, well, do we just say, well, we are a programming show sometimes?
Or is it something that we should change or something that will just always be this way?
What do you guys think?
This is explicitly outside the bounds of my goals because my setup was, of all the people in the world who I think would enjoy our show, how many of them are not listening to it?
And our show means our show as it exists.
We could appeal to a much broader base if we talked about politics or sports, but that's not the show.
There's broad topics and there's narrow topics.
If we only talked about the details of a specific kind of model train, our audience would be way smaller, all right?
uh we are doing what we were talking about what we are passionate about it has a necessarily a narrower audience we can always broaden things up uh and get a larger audience and broaden things up and again i just pick politics or sport because those are pretty broad topics way more people care about politics and sports than care about any of the stuff we talk about
but this is the show we want to do i will never give up talking about the minutia of programming languages and operating systems and and apis and all that stuff because that's what i want to talk about on the show my focus is entirely on there are women out there who are interested in the minutia of programming languages and file systems and crap like that who aren't listening to the show because of stuff we're doing to signal to them that the show is not for them and that is entirely where my focus is i think we do talk about broader topics occasionally
A lot of that might be, as some of the feedback was pointing out, that it's not clear from the outside that we occasionally talk about touchy-feely things, that occasionally it gets a broader topic.
Maybe it's not clear from the outside that occasionally we talk about programming language for a half an hour.
Maybe that would bring in more people as well.
But...
In general, I want this show to be about tech stuff, and we're all interested.
We all have our own little tech pet peeves and hang-ups and things we want to go super into depth with, and that's never going to change because that's the show.
The only thing I would take away from this is that, like...
that we should do a somehow do a better job of representing to the outside world the range of topics that we do talk about because there is a fairly weird i'm not going to say a big range but it's definitely uh you know there it's it's not as narrow as it seems on the outside i think and in some respects it's more narrow in particular areas but we do sort of go to these other islands on the different ends of the spectrum
Yeah, I completely agree.
I think the three of us really love doing this show.
And it's not that we're opposed to making tweaks, but I think we're opposed to making tremendous changes.
And I think that...
Having the show be an accident, having the show, yes, we have show notes that we kind of work off of every week, but we just kind of throw things against the wall and sometimes they stick and sometimes they don't.
And keeping that format is critical in much the same way as keeping the three of us is critical.
And I'm totally good with tweaking here and there, but to dramatically change the content of the show would be changing the show entirely.
And I think the best part of best piece of feedback we had about that is related to our recent revelation that people didn't know the after show existed because we would always put this stuff on the after show to try to maintain the balance, some semblance of like uniformity of like, well, there's mostly the tech stuff in the beginning.
And if we have something that's less tech related because the show is called accidental tech podcast, we should save the most non-techy stuff or the time we just want to talk about like cars or whatever for the after show.
But having learned that a lot of people didn't know the after show even existed before,
a lot of the feedback we've gotten and what we're doing now is say don't leave that stuff for the after show because half the people don't even know it's there and because it makes it seem like it's not as important move it to the main show which we are doing today and i think in the future will be less maybe we'll still keep the car stuff there but you know nobody likes that except us
Because cars, I feel like the cars have even narrower appeal, because then you've got to be a tech nerd and be super into cars, your percentages start going down, right?
But for things that have broader appeal than tech, like women in tech, I think is a broader topic than HFS+.
That should be in the main show, and I think that is definitely a change we're going to do, because we were talking about that anyway, but...
I at least was under the impression like this was a separation.
The show is like just dividing things up on your plate.
Right.
Not like that's the ghetto over there where things go and we don't really want to talk about them.
And, you know, like it wasn't a lesser part.
The after show was not lesser in any way, but it's lesser if people don't even know it exists.
So we definitely need to move that.
Right.
Yeah.
It's main course versus dessert, really.
It's yeah.
And, you know, we last week we had this on the topic list.
Yeah.
We had other things in front of it because of news that had happened, and we could have done it in the after show, and we chose not to because we wanted to give it the attention of being a main topic.
That's why it was up first this week as the first main topic.
Yep, absolutely.
One more thing in the chat room.
Tim in Austin says he's talking to someone who...
is with him there and saying three men discussing what women would like and don't like matter of factly is very patronizing women or individuals which i tried to make that point in the beginning but maybe he missed that part of the show yes all this feedback we're getting is from a bunch of different people none of them represents all women they just are themselves which is why you need a lot of feedback from a lot of different people
they're none of none of these women speak for all women we are trying to address women as a group and so i have to discuss them as a group but it's it's where you just have to we're talking about them collectively but every person is different every woman is different these that's why i said the individual feedback some women say this someone said they're individuals they're not a group but we are trying to address them as a group so i
You know, it's people may not want to hear three men talking about what we want.
But what we're trying to do is address them as a group and say, how can we make it?
So our show is not is doing fewer things that make you feel like the show is not for you.
And it's you, the collective now.
It's not any particular individual, because if we wanted to address an individual, we could just simply ask that individual.
What do you specifically want and address them and get that one thing?
We are trying to address women as a group.
Yeah.
It would be irresponsible of us – it would be weird if we didn't address this.
It would be weird if we didn't have conversations like, what can we do to improve this with our show?
This is a full topic.
This is a relevant topic that we have to cover.
And it actually is tech-related because the tech industry is the industry with this massive problem.
It's not just like – it's not –
doctors and lawyers have much better representation of women than the tech industry like it's a big problem in tech and in gaming and these things like so it is totally a tech topic not that it needs to be a tech topic because we can talk about cars whatever the hell we want but this is this is actually a tech topic and and we're gonna keep discussing it this is not gonna be the last time you hear about this topic on our show yeah and and and work on it because like
you know during the show when i'm talking after the show when i listen to myself to hear all the things i did wrong i know like you know i i did it 17 times in this show referring to people as he by default right using using male centered pronouns and discussions from a male perspective like happens all the time it is very different not that i'm saying this is an excuse but it's difficult to change we are working on it like we're trying like we just need to get way better at it and constantly hearing feedback from women that tell us
When we're doing it wrong, like they will tell us things we don't notice ourselves.
Like all the things that I notice are things that people have told me.
That's why I noticed them.
Right.
So that feedback is essential.
And that engagement of like asking women to tell us, you know, again, they're going to have conflicting opinions.
They don't speak with one voice.
But if you don't ask, you're never going to know.
Like like what was the one that I highlighted from the.
the idea is about asking women to listen to the show why did that not occur to me i don't know but like if you don't explicitly say hey women who love tech stuff we have a tech podcast you might want to listen to it they're not going to come and you know what i mean like that's called being inviting literally you are literally inviting them specifically them not just like people like hey out there people if you're interested in tech you know
people used to say to me that they you know they like the show whatever and i would say that's great uh tell your nerdy friends about the show like and i would always say tell your nerdy friends because don't just tell your friends because your friends probably aren't into you know the minutiae that we talk about on a tech podcast tell your nerdy friends right um
At this point, I would modify that to do a specific call to tell your nerdy friends, including your nerdy girl friends.
Why do you have to call them out specifically?
Because I think most people just hear nerd and picture a guy, which is wrong, but that's the stereotype.
You have to actually make an actual...
assertive effort to combat the overwhelming bias of the entire tech world towards mail because if you do nothing it will just default to mail everywhere and that's what we're trying to avoid here and yeah it's it's difficult to do we all do it uh i know i'm trying not to do it uh you know every week hopefully we're getting better a little bit maybe uh but yeah the discussions like this will hopefully produce some more feedback and we'll get more ideas and uh do better things going forward
Yeah, I couldn't agree more.
And I mean, all of us are trying.
All three of us are trying.
And I'm sure all three of us have said some really dumb crap just now.
But it's from a good place for what it's worth.
And we're trying to get better.
So if you are a woman or a girl, because I don't want to be the ageist.
It's cumbersome.
But like, I don't have you don't want to.
the feedback i've gotten many many times is that female is not a great way to refer which i've done three times in the show already i understand that but like it's so clinical and just the but women and girls is who we're talking about because i don't want to exclude kids from kids i would love the show when i was a kid kids should listen to the show girl kids boy kids everybody and women and men show for everybody really
As long as you're a nerd.
If you self-identify as someone who is female, then please, if you have feedback, then let us know.
And if you're a dude, then I'm sure you're going to give us your feedback anyway, because that's exactly what happened when John asked specifically for women and girls to give feedback.
yeah i didn't want i didn't want to call that out i knew it was going to happen like i i admit being being the cynical person that i am i part of the reason i got excitement about explicitly tweeting to women and girls like the tweet was to them is that i knew a million guys would answer like i just said it's male answer syndrome i have it 100 i i am a sufferer of this i'm not just a client i'm the president okay i think we all are and sure enough like go you can go through the thread and try to count up
Did more men than women... I mean, granted, I probably have more male followers than women.
I looked at my follower ratio with one of those tools that tries to figure out if you're a man or a woman.
It's just massively unbalanced.
I'm doing terrible at this.
I've been trying to adjust my follow account, by the way.
For the people who I follow, I've been unfollowing men and following women to try to get it even close.
Like, I'm not even close to parody.
But anyway, tons of men answered this question.
And I'm not going to, like, shame them for answering because I understand why they did it.
And, you know...
Their input is just as useful as anyone else's.
I just have to understand their input is coming from a male perspective, if you want a female perspective, which is what I was asking for.
They could be saying the exact same things that the women are saying, and it's also a good idea, right?
But...
people jump on that bearing of like i didn't ask you men to like bottom line on twitter if i addressed a question to only people who have a playstation 4 a thousand xbox owners would answer me that has nothing to do with gender people just want to say what they want to say like you know it really doesn't you know but you know male answer syndrome is a thing and i don't want to shame any of the men who answered that's why i didn't reply to any of them and telling them i didn't ask you i was asking like
All feedback welcome.
You can't control who answers your questions.
You know, just my favorite person who gets frustrated by this is JWZ.
Jamie, what's his name?
Zawinski or whatever the old... Yep, yep.
Yeah.
He always has like tech questions on his blog.
And he's fairly famous.
And so when he asks a tech question, like many of us, he gets lots of different answers.
But he's so angry at people not answering the question he asked.
He always says...
I want to figure out how to get X to work with Y. Don't tell me how I can do it by compiling my own thing.
Don't tell me how I can write a program to do it.
Don't tell me if I use a different operating system, I wouldn't have this problem.
Don't tell me this program would do it.
I want to use this program with this thing and this.
And then a million people answer them and they just ignore them and they just tell them whatever they want.
You should really use Gen 2 and compile from source.
It's like...
It's impossible.
I don't know why he fights that battle.
I don't fight that battle.
All feedback is welcome.
I will gladly find the feedback that I want and read it.
I'll read the other ones too.
I can file it away to my own mind.
Please never feel like you shouldn't respond to anything.
Even if I explicitly address the question to PS4 owners, if you're an Xbox owner and you want to give me an answer, just make it clear you're an Xbox owner and I'll put it in the right bin and it'll be fine.
Our final sponsor this week, which is also gender neutral, is Fracture.
Fracture prints your photos in vivid color directly on glass.
Go to FractureMe.com, and if you are a new customer, you can get 15% off your first order with coupon code ATP15.
uh so fracture is great i have tons of fracture prints hanging up all over my office all over our house uh we've sent them as gifts now multiple times people love them you see these things trust me people i get compliments on them all the time people who see this in my office people love these things they make great gifts uh you know any you know holidays of course mother's day is coming up uh oh crap that's gender specific kind of well anyway uh everyone has a
You're overthinking it.
Mother's Day.
Just go with it.
Just go with it.
Mother's Day is fine.
You did not invent Mother's Day.
Right.
So holidays exist.
Reasons to give people gifts exist.
And if you want to get a picture printed, Fracture is the way to do it.
Because here's what's great about these things.
So as I said, it's photos printed on glass.
So the way these things are structured, it's a thin piece of glass.
the ink is printed right onto the backside of it, and it's shining through the front.
So that way, you know, the ink is not going to scratch off.
If anything happens to the front of the glass, it's not going to scratch off or anything.
These are durable things.
But also, because the glass is really thin...
it looks like the picture was printed on the top.
So you get this nice, reflective, glossy photo print that looks like it is just the picture on the front of the glass, but it's nice and shiny and durable.
And also because the glass layer is so thin, they're light.
So you can have like a nice big print.
I mean, the ones I have above my desk, I have a pair of them above my computer that I think are like 11 by 17.
And they don't weigh that much.
Like a framed picture, that same size would weigh more because the frame would weigh more.
Fracture prints, they have this thin glass layer.
And then behind it is like some foam that then like some foam board.
And so you can hang it.
You can put like a little picture hang on there or whatever.
So the whole thing is actually pretty lightweight.
It looks like it's a solid piece of glass, but it's thin glass adhered to foam board.
So it really gives the best of everything from a practical point of view.
Like, I'm always afraid when I'm hanging up big pictures because I have a couple of large frame prints in my office too.
I'm always afraid they're going to fall off.
They're going to shatter or whatever.
They're going to get broken during shipping maybe.
Fracture, I've never had that problem.
They've never fallen off.
They've never broken anything.
They never tore the nail out of the wall or anything.
You don't need a giant nail to hang them because they don't weigh that much.
They're very practical.
They have desk mounts also or desk stands.
And again, I wouldn't feel bad if I had one of those on my desk and I accidentally knocked it over.
It probably wouldn't break.
Even if it fell from my desk onto the floor, I bet it wouldn't break.
Because they're durable.
They're well built.
And they just look incredible.
As I said, tons of compliments on these things.
Whenever anybody sees them, they always ask what that is.
People who have heard the show who then come to my house for the first time, they always look at those like, oh, are those fractures?
They look really nice.
This has actually happened numerous times now.
So yeah, always hear about them.
They're fantastic.
They're also really affordable.
so their prices start at just 15 bucks for the five by five square print that's the kind that i i kind of famously now i made my my row of app icons hanging above my window and i'm using this this five by five square print 15 bucks each uh it's it's a no-brainer they're fantastic if you want to like print your app icon to kind of show like here's the thing i made uh or you know you can do podcast album art if you're a podcaster any kind of square art they also have rectangular sizes of course
It's just nice to have these trophies of things you made.
And then also, of course, just photos.
Lots of people take photos, as we talked about earlier.
Whether you've edited your photos or not, they make great fracture prints.
So really check them out.
They are great.
It is the thinnest, lightest, and most elegant way to display your favorite photos.
They're all handmade by a small team in Gainesville, Florida, and hand-checked for quality.
And their prices are just fantastic.
So once again, go to FractureMe.com.
Get 15% off your first order with coupon code ATP15.
Thanks a lot to Fracture for sponsoring the show.
all right so you've been busy marco and you've been working on uh overcast specifically for the apple watch and from what we've gathered john and i uh or john and me whatever uh what what whom have gathered you want to make a third guess or no no i'll just i'll quit while i'm behind so um so what have you been up to lately and what is what has caused you to make all these changes
So I got the Apple Watch.
I got I got the one that was shipped on the first day they were available.
So it arrived on 24th and I started using my I had written the app before then and I started using the app on the watch.
And within like a day, I already looked at what I've made and like, OK, this it works, but it's not very good and it could be better.
And there's a number of things about this.
I'm not going to go into a whole lot of specific details of things that worked and didn't because that's better off as a blog post, really.
And therefore, I wrote a blog post with tons of images.
And it's always bad to describe all that image stuff on a podcast.
So I'll say that for when I publish the blog post, which will be when the new versions approve.
But I basically restructured the entire interface.
The original interface of it mimicked the three-level navigation hierarchy of the iPhone app.
So you have like, you know, root level is list of playlists and podcasts.
Then you pick one of those and it pops you into the second level, which is the list of episodes in the thing you picked.
And you pick an episode and it pushes you to the third level, which is the now playing screen.
And you can go back to the other levels and change things and whatever.
So I replicated that structure onto the watch.
So I had, you know, you launch the app and you'd see, you know, list of things, list of episodes, and now playing.
In reality, anyone who's had a watch has probably seen weird lags and delays with loading apps, loading WatchKit apps.
Um...
WatchKit is really slow at times.
And in general, once things are loaded, it's fine.
But the process of loading an app, it's doing all sorts of crazy optimizations and power savings and everything.
And so whatever it's doing to conserve power...
uh it's it it has occasional bugs still and i don't know if it's because it's going over bluetooth or if it's because this is just you know watch os 1.0 and these are 1.0 bugs probably some combination of both if i can take a guess uh but anyway um watch kit apps are fragile to some degree like and they're inconsistent um
The more you ask them to do, the more you exacerbate this problem.
I had a number of issues with my three-level navigation structure being moved onto the watch.
One of the issues was that what I really wanted most of the time was the now playing screen to show up first because that's usually what you need to interact with.
Changing things on the now playing screen, seeing what's playing, seeing how much time is left, seeking back and forth within it, maybe recommending it is something I frequently do.
Because oftentimes, I'll be out walking my dog or something, and I love what I'm listening to, and I want to recommend it.
So I want to quickly go to the watch, hit recommend, and then get back to what I was doing.
Stuff like that.
None of that is going back to the list of podcasts and list of playlists.
That's something I hardly ever do on the go.
And if I'm going to do that, I can take my phone out.
I had built this app to mimic the structure of the iOS app.
In practice, that was adding a lot of complexity to lots of things.
Suffice to say, I restructured the whole app.
And now it is centered on, rather than being a three-level navigation hierarchy where the final level is the now playing screen, now it is basically a single screen interface where the only, the root level, is the now playing screen.
And any other functions are brought up by slide-up modal sheets, like modal dialogues.
That structure, this is not coming across well on a podcast, but...
That structure ends up working a lot better because it's simple because it's asking WatchKit to load a lot less on startup.
Rather than loading a three-level deep navigation hierarchy, it is now loading one screen.
Am I correct in characterizing this change as you choosing to do the things the watch can do quickly or responsibly over the things the watch does slowly?
Yeah.
Yes.
So this this is this is the part I want to actually talk about on the show that that does translate well to a podcast, which is like my initial inclination.
And I think what a lot of people would have initially tried to do and did try to do with WatchKit, my initial inclination was, well, here's this device that is a that is another app platform for iOS.
So let's port over the iOS interface to make the watch version of the app.
It's assuming that the watch version of the app should be like the iPhone version of the app.
Not only is that wrong, but I think there's a deeper thing that's even more wrong about it.
I think you can look at what happened with these platforms growing up so far.
First, Apple developers made Mac apps.
Then iOS came along.
And so a lot of the Mac developers at some point have tried in the last seven years to make an iOS version of their Mac app.
Or an iOS counterpart to their Mac app.
Usually these have not gone that well.
There are some that work.
There are a lot that don't.
There's a lot of apps that can be perfectly great, useful, in-demand apps on a Mac...
Just the realities of iOS devices or iOS, the platform, the OS itself, it just doesn't work well on iOS.
Maybe things that need precise mouse control, keyboard shortcuts, big screens, that kind of stuff.
I'm not going to edit the podcast on an iPad, even though I can.
There are tools to do that.
But I can do it so much better on a Mac than I could ever do on an iPad that I'm just going to do it on a Mac.
There are certain things like that where something might be technically possible to migrate over to a new platform, but not useful or compelling compared to just having it be on one.
And the same thing applies in the opposite direction.
A lot of iOS things are not very compelling or useful on the Mac.
They're compelling or useful on iOS.
And you can say the same thing between iPhones and iPads.
Many things work better on one device than the other, etc.
So from that point of view alone, you can look at the watch and the assumption that the watch should have apps corresponding to your iPhone app, whatever app you make or whatever app you're thinking of using...
Chances are most iPhone apps don't need watch components and probably shouldn't have watch components.
Like for most iPhone apps, a watch component is not that compelling and not that useful in practice, especially considering what the watch can do today.
Like there's limitations of, you know, just things watch kit can't do.
There's quite a lot of things watch kit can't do.
It's a very simple system.
So there's, you know, limitations of what watch kit can and can't do.
Plus just, you know, speed and bugs and,
There's also just inherent qualities of the watch as a platform, as a physical device.
iPhones have gotten bigger over time, but they're still relatively handheld touchscreen devices.
They're still the same general size class of what they've always been.
They are things that can fit in your pocket that you can pick up and probably use with one hand and then put back in your pocket when you're done.
iPads are bigger things.
They don't fit in most pockets.
They can fit in most bags, but not most pockets.
And you use them generally with two hands, and that decides a lot of things.
Laptops are different.
Laptops, even the super small ones, like the MacBook One, laptops are different.
You generally don't put them in any pockets of any size garment.
So there's these different classes.
And as technology progresses...
Most of those major lines between those different size classes don't change.
Laptops, even the super small ones like the MacBook One, are generally not going to be brought in somebody's handbag to dinner if they don't have to.
Laptops are generally not going to be in your back pocket.
This is just how things work.
So a laptop is not going to be always with you.
An iPad is not going to be always with you.
You might have it in your house, but it might not be in the same room that you're in.
And no matter how much technology progresses, no matter how thin and light these things get, how good the batteries get, whatever else...
those broad strokes, those broad lines tend not to shift.
Whatever inherent limitations of a form factor exist tend to stay there.
iPads and iPhones are inherently limited by not having physical keyboards and precise mice.
That limits the kind of apps that work well on them, the kind of uses that work well on them.
And even if you get a keyboard for your iPad or whatever, it's not the same.
Those lines always exist, right?
So looking at the watch now,
The watch is always going to be a relatively small screen, a very small battery.
According to the iFixit teardown, the watch is approximately a tenth the size of the iPhone 6 battery.
So that's literally an order of magnitude less battery capacity.
Also, much longer screen, probably, I don't know, maybe a tenth of the screen area, or probably not that bad, but it's closed, maybe a fifth of the screen area.
It's a much smaller thing.
it's also strapped to your arm and strapped to your wrist.
And so it is necessarily, as we discussed last episode, a device that one of your hands can't operate.
And so you have to operate with your other hand or your nose or John's tongue or whatever the case may be.
So there's these inherent limitations to this device.
No matter how good the hardware inside the watch gets, as technology will go over time, no matter how good that gets,
It's still always going to be a small screen strapped to one of your wrists that will have probably an order of magnitude less battery life than whatever we can put into the phone in your pocket.
So there's this assumption that many people have made...
that the watch is eventually going to replace the smartphone.
Over time, the watch will get its own cell radios and GPS, and that part might happen.
And that over time, the watch will become the dominant computing platform, that everything is just moving smaller and smaller, and first it was computers, then it was your phones, now it's going to be your watch, or eventually it's going to be your watch.
And because of all these limitations, as I was talking about, these physical limitations, physical characteristics, I don't think that's ever going to happen.
you just said ever didn't you i did i know an infinite time scale i know i know but who have you heard this from like i haven't i haven't heard in all the watch coverage people saying that the watch is going to replace the phone where have you like most coverage is talking like near term who's who's on that bandwagon
I've heard a lot of tech commenters say that, especially before the watch was out.
A lot of people said that that's where we were going.
What's more interesting is that I have heard that now from almost everybody in real life who I've talked to about the watch, like people who are not geeks.
Like regular people think like, oh, this is the next new thing.
literally every single person who has asked me about the watch and we start talking about it then this isn't a huge group but they have all said that every every normal person out there in the world thinks that that's where this is going uh so i do think this is this is a valid thing to discuss and it especially pertains to app developers so so a you know as i said no matter how good the technology gets
The phone that's in your pocket is always going to have 10 times the battery life, 5 to 10 times the screen space, the ability to be used one-handed in either of your hands at any time, way faster processors, bigger, more aggressive, power-hungry radios, things like that, less aggressive power-saving measures.
There's always going to be that difference just because of the physical differences between those two roles.
As long as humans still only have two hands and their wrists aren't a foot wide, that's going to keep being the case.
You're doing it again!
so do you do you foresee a future in which wrists get a foot wide and people grow third hands no like so the i don't think this is what these people are talking about i think if people are coming up to you and saying that like that they think they're asking you as to what you're placing your phone they're talking about exactly what you're talking about but but long term the reason like the the futurist visionary whatever people say that long term that wearables and so on are the futurist because what they're envisioning is uh
input and output methods being radically different right so they're envisioning uh it doesn't matter how big the screen is it'll be projected onto your retina it could be whatever size you want it whatever doesn't turn your head you want right that's what you basically have to do because like like you said you're never going to do the stuff you do on a phone on a screen that's false it's not going to happen if you're touching it with your fingers and looking at it with your eyeballs but if the thing is projected onto your retinas and it's a virtual 19 inch screen in front of you that comes and goes when you blink your eye in a certain way like input methods have to input and output methods have to change radically from what they are now
If you envision a world that only contains capacitive touchscreens of various sizes, then everything you're saying is 100% true.
And that is our future for the next, like, many decades, probably, right?
But long, long term, I think the reason you hear all this wearable hype, most of the wearable hype I read, is that, like, as the cost and size of compute goes down to zero...
other things become possible when everything on your entire body is filled with tiny microprocessors that are 15 times more powerful than the a8 and it's all powered by static electricity from you scuffing your feet on the carpet and you know like like that's you need new input and output methods though and you know something that goes directly into your eyeballs or you know vr goggles are the first giant clunky versions of that or
things that are in your ears waving your hands around in the air like connect style hold like that's i think what people are talking about the tech the tech people who talk about future world wearables of the future but the people who are coming up to you are legitimately it seems like asking you are you not going to use your phone now that you have a postage stamp size capacitive touchscreen on your wrist and i hope you're telling them no
No, that is exactly... People are making that assumption.
And that's going to keep being a thing as smartwatches grow in popularity over the next few years.
That's going to keep definitely being a thing.
The reason I asked before about you're making choices for overcast based on what the phone can do quickly is that it's like...
Put another way, the watch did things just as fast as the phone, like multi-level hierarchies.
They work just like they did it on.
Are you making the choice because it's the best UI conceptually?
Or are you saying conceptually it would be better this way, but practically speaking, it's too damn slow with WatchKit.
So I have to choose...
a ui design that i wouldn't otherwise choose just because performance is you know so much more important than like navigation hierarchy or whatever like well you know performance like i mean it's this whole reason the iphone was awesome like you know what's what's different between the iphone all the other touch phones like the performance so massively better it's like a you know a step jump in an experience right so you are definitely making the right choice but like
i'm wondering you know it's a it's kind of a shame that if you were forced to make that choice by crappy performance and watch kit and b i'm wondering if the choices will change as the watch evolves because although obviously you'll always be able to get something more powerful and something the size of a phone the watch will get faster and the phone will get faster and they will you know march forward down the line of getting faster and so on eventually the watch will be hopefully like either you know native apps or watch kit will be better or like
five versions of the watch from now i'm hoping performance will be way way better and then you know what will app design look like then you know given given that watch the five years from now watch would you revisit your your ui and say now the performance isn't a factor i might how might i do this ui differently and i i think for the most part you can tell me because you were i was still really early on when it was iphone os right
Did you ever have to make that choice on iOS?
That you're making UI choices based on what the phone, the actual phone did?
Maybe with table views when they were scrolling really slow?
I don't know.
Did you ever have to do that?
Not really.
Usually it was the opposite direction.
Usually the things I would think in my head before I did it, that probably won't be fast enough.
And I would try it and I'd be like, oh, this phone hardware is not as bad as I thought.
The crazy way with this paper that I would do pagination and detection of where pages ended was...
Crazy.
And it worked.
And I'm shocked that it worked.
Or even with Overcast, as I've said before, like with Overcast, when I first was prototyping the audio engine with smart speed and voice boost.
And the visualizer, right?
And the visualizer.
All of those things I thought would be too slow on the real hardware.
And then I tried them.
And they all were like, oh yeah, 2% CPU usage.
Like, wow, okay, I'll do it then.
So this is like yet another reason amongst all the other ones you already listed that the watch is different because I think it's the first Apple platform in a while, except for maybe OS X, which was also butt slow in the beginning.
Like...
that it's the opposite it's like actually it's slower than you think it is and actually watch kit has more limitations than you thought it might and not just like limitations and capability but like yeah you can do it with a watch kit but have you seen what it's like and how long it takes to load those things right so it's it's just a different mindset it's kind of going back to i don't know like old world mindset where you just assume the computer was really slow and you had to be like i gotta figure out what this computer can do fast and then make my app do that because especially when it comes to uis that's so much more important than
conceptual purity or some wireframe that you have that you've fallen in love with.
But the fact is, we're talking about CPU performance, really, but that's not the problem on the watch.
I mean, we don't know.
Our apps are not running on the watch's CPU at all.
We really can't tell.
Right.
It's the whole Bluetooth connection or Wi-Fi between... We talked about it before.
It's never going to get faster, faster, faster until the watch gets faster and you get native apps because...
At least, anyway, my collective experience with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth is there's some inherent lag, and you're never going to get that down to a point where it feels as responsive as something running on the device.
Exactly.
But even that being said, the performance for things like tapping buttons, yeah, you can feel there's lag there, but it's acceptable overall.
It's not great, it's acceptable.
Having used a watch for a grand total of three and a half minutes so far, one of the first things I did was swipe through the glances or whatever, and just doing the swipe test.
It didn't feel slow, but it kind of felt like a couple generations ago, iPhone.
This is not a demanding test.
This is all happening on the phone.
It's not WatchKit apps.
I'm assuming it's got the views all in memory.
I'm just asking it to open GLFI, transition things from one to the next in response to swipes.
And it felt a little bit like it didn't feel as snappy, certainly not as snappy as like an iPhone 6.
Maybe it felt like one of my old iPod Touches or whatever.
So even with native apps, I think we've moved back in time to, at best, Apple's own apps have moved back in time several generations in the iOS world, even for a simple, completely on-device, completely OpenGL-accelerated core animation transition from one tiny view to a next.
oh totally and you know like the rumors i mean i don't think we've had any confirmation on this now that we've had the thing but the rumors are were always that it was roughly a5 performance which would match you know your old ipod touch was that the architecture they thought it was like it's a tiny a5 because it's got to be so massively underclocked in there we don't know right but i assume just yeah that's a good point about clock yeah i don't know but look i mean
The reality is what we've seen the watch do, it does certainly appear that computational performance is not limiting factor here, at least not for any watch kit app.
But it isn't even seeming to be the limiting factor for Apple's apps.
They do all sorts of animations and stuff that are probably not all pre-rendered images the way that watch kits have to be.
They can do stuff that is clearly... This is not running a 486 in there.
So, do you know what that is, being a Mac person, John?
I know Casey does.
I made a reference to an old CPU.
Anyway.
I'm with you.
Yeah, I knew you'd know it.
While John was watching every movie under the sun to make other references.
I will wager that I have written more x86 assembly than both of you combined.
Yeah.
Anyway.
Thousands and thousands of lines.
Anyway, so the point is, like, technology will get better even if the watch hardware right now is too slow to do something.
That will change in a few years.
That's not going to be a problem for very long.
Yeah.
My argument is that no matter how good the hardware gets, the inherent limitations of how you interact with this thing, how the interface being the timepiece is the home screen and the honeycomb of app icons is kind of like this... You kind of go there as a last resort to do something and many things are happening through glances and watch complications instead of going out to the app screen and everything like...
And still, it's a very small screen that you can only access from one hand.
That hand might be busy.
There's always going to be these limitations of this device.
So anyway, going back to the reason I brought this up, not every app needs to be on the watch.
Not every app should be on the watch.
And I would venture to say that overall, while the watch does...
Add a lot of types of apps that are now compelling that weren't before.
A lot of kinds of apps that I would love to have on the watch, if they had an iPhone version, I would have completely ignored them before now.
They wouldn't have been useful enough on an iPhone, or it wouldn't have been interesting on an iPhone.
It would have seemed too simple or whatever.
On the watch, I'm interested.
The watch is definitely creating new opportunities.
But I would argue there's a continuum of computing devices and their uses.
And on one hand, you have full-blown computer-type devices where you can install applications, you can run them, you can do... It's like a general purpose.
It could be your main computer.
For some people, that is an iPhone or an iPad.
For most people, that's going to be a PC or a Mac.
Well, actually, probably not most anymore.
I bet the smartphone is winning.
But anyway, for a lot of geeks, at least, that's going to be a PC or a Mac.
For a lot of people in the world, it's going to be a smartphone.
And for some, it'll be a tablet.
But...
i don't think the watch will ever get there like to me like the watch so on this continuum you have like those kind of devices which can be the general purpose computers and then like on the other end you have like a bluetooth headset which like is it has a computing processor type thing in it but it's not an app platform it doesn't it will never be an app platform it doesn't need to be an app platform what about my thunderbolt cable can i run apps on that
I think you might be able to, actually.
But anyway, so... Last panic.
So you have this continuum.
On one end, you have full-blown computers.
On the other end, you have things that have computing hardware in them but are really just dedicated peripheral-type things or dedicated specialized things.
I would say the watch is closer to the left than the right.
I would say the watch is closer to a peripheral, to an iPhone accessory, than to its own independent standalone platform.
Well, that's going a little far.
I mean, it's running iOS for crying out loud.
On the technical side, you're right.
On the technical side, it has a CPU.
It has a display.
It has apps that you can access.
But I think the way you actually use this thing, once everyone calms down, once the novelty is worn off, I think the way we're actually going to use this thing is this is like a remote view onto the computing life of mine that lives on my iPhone.
And that, like...
Not every app is going to need to be on the watch.
A lot of uses where we're now using the watch, we're going to go back to the phone and say, oh, actually, it was easier to just pull my phone out and do X, Y, or Z rather than doing those things through clunky, slow apps on the watch.
And I think the watch is, in general, even though it does create new opportunities, I think it's going to be a much smaller app platform in practice than what people might have been hoping for before we had them.
And that's not because Apple did a bad job with it.
That's just because of the realities of what watches are and what they have to be.
Well, I hope that's just a temporary thing, though, because if I'm thinking of some specific applications that are actually better suited to the watch than the phone and we just can't do it because the computing is not there.
And like, you know, so if you get a watch that has its own GPS that has a much faster CPU and GPU, any kind of like GPS based hiking or walking around the city type thing.
It's the worst to try to walk around a city while holding up a phone in front of you to see where it is.
Basically, if you just had unlimited computing capacity and onboard GPS on your watch, you could navigate in a city with just a watch, and it would be an awesome experience.
Better than fishing your phone out of your pocket every 10 seconds to find out which road you're supposed to turn on to.
uh and so i think there is a potential for this computing platform to come into its own and be a full-fledged computer but only for applications that are actually better on the watch not because not now all of a sudden every one of your ios apps can be in your watch because that's stupid but for things that are actually better when they're on your watch that we just can't do now because like
well it's always tethered the phone if you tried to use it that way as a remote display for the apple maps application it's going to be slow and clunky and you know can you imagine like a watch that responded in basically real time to its orientation and direction like it had a map on it and as you raised your arm it would adjust in like 3d to point the arrow towards where you're supposed to go like no matter how you waved your arm around the arrow would constantly be pointing to the left turn you're supposed to make like we're not even close to that kind of computing power and
and battery to support that but it's conceivable in our lifetime and that is a way cooler experience to just be able to glance down at your wrist put your arm into any position and have the big green arrow pointing exactly where you're supposed to go on the trail next or whatever or you know what block you're supposed to turn on or little indicators to see you know how close the the closest starbucks is or whatever
marco needs that app oh yeah every day yeah but like but you know i'm i'm not willing to accept that the watch will be relegated to this forever because i think it just we're just stuck with what we're stuck with now but it if they just ramp up the technology new classes about this is what everyone's talking about new classes application will be possible right now perhaps new classes are not possible like you said it's mostly just for a peripheral view of things that are going on on your phone and you don't have to tell time and count your steps and do all that stuff but eventually
several generations from now on an infinite timescale not infinite this is the close timescale you know what i mean like we'll get to this one right it doesn't take much more i mean obviously it takes native apps and then it takes you know lower power cpus and blah blah and a couple generations new things will be possible on the watch uh and
And GPS is just the one I thought off the top of my head.
Maybe that's not even true, but like people will try everything.
Like that's the good thing about it.
People will try.
Maybe we can have games on there and maybe that sucks.
Maybe it does like everyone.
People will try everything.
And, you know, one of those things is going to hit the same thing we did with the phone.
It's like no one knew what was going to be great on the phone until we tried every possible thing, including fart apps.
And eventually it settles on the things that it does well.
It's just that, you know, right now, I mean, it's kind of happening right now.
Everyone's saying, but I'm going to make everything for WatchKit.
And, you know, as a lot of the reviewers say, there's like thousands of WatchKit apps and most of them suck because people were wrong about what would be good in a WatchKit app.
But the WatchKit days hopefully will be gone in a few years and we'll move on to trying the equivalent of fart apps on the watch until someone hits something good.
Well, day one of the App Store, John, I don't know if you remember this.
Day one of the App Store, they were very similar to what people are saying now, which is like, yeah, the vast majority of these things are terrible.
A few are good, but the majority are terrible.
What was the first app you downloaded from the App Store?
Hmm.
I don't know.
I remember that first day I downloaded a bunch.
I downloaded Monkey Ball and a couple of other.
Yeah, I think Monkey Ball was probably my top three.
I think I had Lights Out.
Remember that one?
Yeah, that was there early.
But I remember what I'm getting as the experience.
I remember like, oh, so this is the App Store.
What can we download?
And like Monkey Ball was like nine bucks or something, wasn't it?
Yeah, ten bucks.
It was the old days, the App Store as kids.
Let me tell you, Monkey Ball was ten bucks and it was terrible.
Yep.
Because the control scheme was terrible, even though I love Monkey Ball on the GameCube.
Awesome game.
on the iphone terrible anyway i downloaded tons of stuff like went for you know big names things made by people i know blah blah and you're right you used all of them you're like all right guys try again right yeah you saw everybody with their like beer app the beer pouring things and like lights out was the best game practically because that one had been developed before the app store and it was again it was a game they knew would work on the phone because all you do is poke the screen which you know
That is actually something that the phone is good at.
A big, you know, sort of board game grid type thing where you poke the screen.
Good use of the phone.
That was like the best app that I remember on day one.
All right.
Thanks a lot for our three sponsors this week.
Glide, hover, and fracture.
And we'll see you next week.
Now the show is over.
They didn't even mean to begin.
Because it was accidental.
Accidental.
Oh, it was accidental.
Accidental.
John didn't do any research, Marco and Casey wouldn't let him Cause it was accidental, it was accidental And you can find the show notes at atp.fm
It's accidental.
Accidental.
They didn't mean to.
Accidental.
Accidental.
I'm looking at, I went into my iPhone to the app store to purchases.
You scroll to the bottom.
You actually got to the end of that list?
Mm-hmm.
Wow.
The very first one, AOL Instant Messenger.
Oh, mistake, yeah.
I know.
I probably used it for five minutes because I didn't even remember that I had had it.
Next one, Labyrinth Light Edition.
oh i had that too yeah next one tap tap revenge classic paid version yeah i had i had that one um and then a couple of games uh restaurant nutrition air sharing a couple of vnc ssh apple remote and flight control which is what i was really i thought flight control was the first one i had downloaded because when i got my phone um that was it to my memory around the time the flight control was brand new and
To my memory, that was one of the first games.
Tap Tap Revenge actually was kind of like this too, but one of the first games that just everyone had to have.
And oh my God, I loved Flight Control.
I played that thing for hours.
New York Times, Apple Remote App, Net Newswire, Chopper, which is like Choplifter, which I loved.
Tap Tap Revenge, Scribble Light, more Cowbell.
Yes, I downloaded a Cowbell app.
Nice.
Banner Free, Black and White, which looks like Othello.
Yeah, that's right.
I played that a lot.
I wondered why I had that banner app.
And I guess it's because it was like one of those only apps on the store on day one.
That's why I have the same stupid thing.
And I'm guessing it probably was originally just called banner.
Yeah.
And then they later added a paid version, just like I did with Instapaper.
I shouldn't say it's stupid.
It's cool.
That's the one that scrolls the message across your screen.
I think that was actually a good idea for a day one app.
yeah on ipad it's actually kind of useful because the screen's nice and big um yeah cube runner ap world 9 pair me subway shuffle labyrinth light that's all the labyrinth games on day one peg jump and galcon is my first like no recognized no recognizable game yeah so uh yeah a whole bunch of garbage basically there's some good stuff did you have the physical version of labyrinth light you know what they show on the icon for labyrinth the marble labyrinth things made of wood yeah yeah i had a few of them
Yeah, I love those things.
The physical one is much more satisfying than the iOS game.
Yeah.
Of all these things, the thing I spent the most time playing was Black and White, the Othello clone.
Yeah.
Until Galcon came around.
Definitely flight control for me.
I probably haven't played it.
Well, that wasn't there on day one, though.
No, no, no.
But it was my day one, if you will, because it was by the time I got an iPhone and...
I think I've played flight control more than any other game on my phone, any of my phones ever.
I loved flight control.
Although I did play a lot of ramp champ.
That was much later though.
Yeah, it was.
It was much later.
I gotta go get my phone to see what my apps are.
I'm curious.
Hang on a second.
Don, you can find it in iTunes.
Oh, can you?
Yeah, go to the App Store page, go to purchases.
Here we go.
So yeah, if you scroll all the way, if you sort by most recent, scroll all the way down to the bottom of that giant page, it's there.
Net Newswire, Chopper, Tap Tap, Scribble Light, Pandora Radio.
Facebook?
I downloaded Facebook?
oh super monkey ball new york times net newswire apple remote google aim i should make fun of the aim thing i've got it too the ebay app and then uh two othello clones tap tap revenge trism banner free boy yeah we all download the same damn apps on day one labyrinth light my 12th app was flight control as previously discussed 15th app tumblr
another classic from the old days space dead beef i think it's still out there uh very cool game i'm surprised i mean maybe it's not a good not good fit for the phone but i really loved that game and i wish there were more games like that if not for the phone than for other platforms uh two biggest pieces of nostalgia for me flight control icon and the tweety icon i miss tweety
Love iTunes.
Even though I have my thing set to always show scroll bar, iTunes says, I'm ignoring that.
I'm going to give you one of those auto-hiding scroll bars.
It is its own UI.
It has no respect for the system settings.