Apple's Response to the iPod Virus was Tacky

Period. And here's why: Anytime someone screws up and even makes the tiniest attempt to try and shift the blame, it's tacky. It's poor sportsmanship. It's poor form. Since everyone is spouting analogies, here's mine: Let's say I throw you a can of Coke. You know, you're thirsty, and I go, "Here's a can of Coke," and I throw it to you. But you're not ready. You're not expecting that can of Coke to be flying across the room at you, and you miss it. You miss the catch, and you get conked on the head by my flying can of Coke. Now, if my response is, "Dude, I'm so sorry I hit you in the head with that can of Coke," that's appropriate. We'll probably remain friends, you and I. But, if I say something like, "Sorry I hit you on the head with that can of Coke, but you really should have caught it," well now, that's just plain old tacky. And you're probably going to remember that, and it will probably fester in your mind, perhaps for some years, until it finally comes out in some fit of rage that ultimately ends our friendship. 'Cause, basically, I'm an asshole for saying that, and I probably said a whole lot more stuff like that, and by now you probably have every reason to hate me. But I digress.

The point in time when you royally screw up — like Apple did by releasing iPods with viruses on them — is not ever a point in time when you want to be pointing out someone else's flaws. I don't know what it is about the social human mind that recoils at such behavior. It just does. And that's why most of us think Apple's response to their screw-up was just plain... Uh... Right, tacky!

Maybe they need to release another press release that says, "We're sorry we screwed up, and we're also sorry we tried to shift the blame." A-la, "I'm sorry I hit you with that Coke, and I'm sorry I tried to blame you for it after." That might help. Might.

Online Advertisers: Time and Again, You're Losing Me

Warning: Many of the links on this page are annoying as shit. Please click with care. Or at least with a sane, popup-blocking browser.

Every time I click on your ad in my browser, and a popup window with some dumbass Flash presentation starts loading, and I'm sitting there waiting for you to give me some information about your product, and getting bored, and I know if wait for it I'll be under-whelmed and under-informed and probably even more annoyed, you lose me. I close the window before that stupid Flash animation ever gets a chance to finish loading. Fuck you. Why do I have to wait for you to sell me something? My time is precious.

Or another scenario: I load up a bunch of tabs with pages I'm interested in. Some of these pages might be movie sites, some trailers, or even just Apple's site, which, since they started auto-playing their ads at every visit, I've axed from my dailies. (They've mercifully stopped doing this with the introduction of the MacBook, but it was really annoying for a while.) One of these pages has more Flash animation, with that annoying, generic background sound that everyone just hates and that adds absolutely nothing to the experience. Some of the trailers start playing automatically. Great. Now I've got sound spewing from several different tabs at once, and I have to go stop each movie trailer one by one. Worse, when I finally locate the page with the Flash sound I find that it can't be turned off. There's no mute button.

Look, assholes, I'm trying my best to learn about your products. This is stuff I'm already really interested in, or I wouldn't have clicked it in the first place. Your mindless, thoughtless use of Flash and audio say to me that you don't give a shit about my browsing experience, nor do you comprehend how people that use tab-capable browsers (i.e., any of us not using I.E.) actually surf the web. I'm sorry, but rather than engendering sympathy or even interest for your cause or product, all you're really doing is pissing me off and losing my business in the process. More often than not, I just close your window and forget about it. I don't need more stuff, or more to read, all that badly. And I certainly don't need more Flash.

Why do we surf? Most of us surf for information. Why do we click on ads? Again, for information. Not for some Flash designer's idea of adver-tainment.

I repeat: You're losing my business. Cut it out.

Ugly-Ass Tab Bar

This is stupid, I know, but it's been bugging me for a long time, and I just can't hold it in any longer: Is Apple ever going to change that tab bar at the top of their web site? 'Cause, dude, it is so, like, Puma. So iMac G3. So Pinstripe.

Ugly-Ass Tab Bar: Time for a Refresh
(click for larger view)

Seems like Apple has redesigned almost every part of their site — from the black pages in the Final Cut Studio section, to the clean modular look of the iPod/iTunes and .Mac pages, the Safari-esque sidebars of the Apple Store, and the metallic look of the Quicktime section. But everywhere you go, that ugly-ass, 10.1-lookin', pinstripe-and-chicklet-button tab bar persists. Isn't it about time they updated that thing?

And please, no metal.

Thanks.

To Repair or not to Repair

I don't really understand why everyone's all of a sudden interested in the Repair Permissions function of Disk Utility. But lately there's been a flurry of writings on the subject of whether or not you should repair permissions before and/or after a software update. It started way the hell back in god-knows-when (actually it was in May of 2005) with an article by a guy called Rosyna who happens to make Unsanity's haxies. This was only recently followed up with two posts by the brilliant author of Daring Fireball, John Gruber. In his second post he blasts MacFixIt for recommending the procedure. And now we have a rather thorough response from them as well.

Why, it's a regular permissions flame war, I tell ya.

Well, I wanted to weigh in on this from my own personal experience, briefly. As someone who manages rooms full of Macintosh computers that are chock full of every imaginable piece of software — both from Apple and third-party vendors — on a daily basis, I have to say, repairing permissions before and/or after a software update — or on a regular basis for that matter — is a perfectly reasonable precautionary measure. I can't tell you how many times a simple permissions repair has fixed an errant problem on a workstation or a client computer. Repair Permissions has saved my ass on countless occasions. And as far as repairing permissions affecting software updates goes, it seems to me that if an incorrect permission can affect overall system or application behavior, it's quite likely it could affect a software update. What happens when the software update package runs and hits a file it's supposed to modify or replace but can't because the permissions are incorrect? Well, seems to me like that could screw things up and leave you with an incomplete install of the update. And that could be bad. This doesn't sound like voodoo to me; it sounds like common sense.

So why doesn't Apple recommend repairing permissions before/after software updates? Well, I have long thought they should. In fact, I think it would be really smart if Apple's software updaters checked the permissions of any dependencies needed by the updater and alerted you to any inconsistencies, then allowed you to choose whether or not to proceed with a repair of the incorrect permissions, and finally proceeded with the update. I doubt this will happen, but a boy can dream. I think the reason Apple doesn't recommend repairing permissions on any sort of regular basis, or before or after a software update, is because they are loathe to admit the generally sad state of permissions settings in the OS. Permissions get changed on a very regular basis. Epson printer software regularly changes permissions on my systems. Flash Player updates do too. And that's just off the top of my head. The fact is, just about any third-party app that installs with an installer (as opposed to drag and drop) can change permissions on any file it wants, and this happens routinely. I've even seen Apple software updates change permissions on my systems (though, admittedly, this hasn't happened for a long time). Basically, Apple just doesn't want to say up front, "Look, this software update might break something, or a third-party app might have changed something that will break something when you install this update, so you should take certain precautions," because doing so would be like saying, "there are huge problems with our permissions model which has gotten much better, but is still seriously flawed in many respects."

So there's an unspoken rule that you should do some general permissions repair on a semi-regular basis. Actually, it's not even unspoken, it's just buried in Apple's Knowledge Base. The fact that the Repair Permissions function exists at all is proof that there is wonkiness in the permissions system, and that running this routine can actually fix stuff. It sure makes a lot of sense to me to perform whatever fixes you can before running a software or OS update, and if that includes Repair Permissions, then that's fine. It takes about one minute of my time and, if nothing else, is well worth the peace of mind it provides.

My question is, why now, guys? Why all of a sudden is this such an issue? The Repair Permissions function has been around for years, and MacFixIt has recommended using it for almost as long. And why John Gruber cares what I do to my system before and after a software update is beyond me. But frankly, I think I trust the MacFixIt guys — and myself — on this one. Don't get me wrong. I love Daring Fireball. It's one of my favorite sites. But MacFixIt — like myself — is in the business of troubleshooting. They/we know about what works and what doesn't. Out there. In the big, bad, complicated world of multiple computers with every imaginable combination of hardware and software, where things most definitely and most decidedly go very, very wrong. I mean, where do you go for troubleshooting advice?

Anyway, I think this whole thing is silly. I respect both these sites immensely, and it pains me to see them argue over such a trivial piece of advice.

Guys, can't we all just get along?

Boot Camp: Shut Up Already

Okay, sure, maybe there's a hint of sour grapes here, my being still Intel Macless and all, but really, please, just stop it already. If I read one more article about Boot Camp — this one included — I'm liable to puke. Just stop. Stop writing about it. It's all been said. It's all been done. You're just repeating yourselves. And it's driving me crazy.

I just clicked a link entitled "Apple to complete Intel transition by end of 2006" on MacFixIt which, rather than leading me to an article about the Apple Intel transition, actually lead to a five page write up on — yup, you guessed it — Boot Camp. I assume somewhere in the five page article is a line or two about the Intel transition and its imminent completion, but if you think I'm going to wade through another opinion piece on how well Windows runs on the Mac, you're freakin' out of your freakin' mind.

People have been running Windows XP on hardware from vendors the world over for, like, seventy billion years now. I can't imagine the experience would be much different on a Mac. And from everything I've read, this is indeed the case.

Sure, it's great we can do it. Just, please, stop writing about it. You're killing me.