The New Apple

Apple unveiled the new iMac today, along with the iLife 08 and iWork 08 suites (neatly skipping the question of ‘07), and suffice to say, they move once again another step forward, keeping themselves way ahead of the curve in both hardware and software.

iMac

One thing that the latest release really confirms is that, in consumer terms, Apple doesn’t make desktop computers any more. They make portable computers, in sizes 13, 15, 17, 20 and 24. There’s no way the components of the iMac are anywhere near the “PC standard” – no chance of being completely user servicable or upgradable. Sure, the iMacs as opposed to the laptops aren’t going to be the most portable devices, but when compared to practically any other “desktop” system, it’s as portable as a … uh… very portable thing.

Anyway.

Apple is light years in front, were light years in front anyway last week, but now they’ve pulled another one out to make sure they stay ahead. Sony’s Vaio series is the only mass manufacturer that even comes close. And Apple can afford to do it, too, because their customers know and expect Apple to control the hardware. The only way to compete would be for a laptop manufacturer to ditch the idea of user-upgradability and just go for it. Oh and poach John Ive while you’re at it, otherwise you’re doomed.

I remember Dad complaining more than once that there was too much clutter around the PC, especially with all those wires. I think I’m going to have to get him a Mac to show him that his wish to get rid of all that crap has come true.

iLife

Nothing so groundbreaking as to warrant dropped jaws, but a big tick of approval as far as I’m concerned with better management in iPhoto, and a revision of iMovie. Again, Apple outpaces anything Microsoft and the Windows universe can throw at them; I just wish that there’s a decent export option in iPhoto 08.

iWork

Keynote and Pages are known quantities: no matter what the upgrade is, the core message is already out there and anything else is just a tweak. Where Apple really pulled a rabbit out of a hat, I feel, is the new spreadsheet app, Numbers.

It’s a continuation of the straightforward naming scheme, and while it is sold as a “spreadsheet”, this ain’t your daddy’s Excel. Without having even used it myself, and having little conceivable use for it in any case, I love it. I love how intelligent this app is – just watch the demo videos on the site and tell me if you don’t find yourself thinking “oh, that is cool actually…” Everything is just more intuitive.

Far and away the best feature, though, is the flexible canvas. It is far more than something for a spreadsheet layout – quite simply, it’s a design tool that’s suddenly shown a gap everywhere else. A spreadsheet as a design tool? Why can’t I do the drag and drop thing this intuitively in Dreamweaver? Is there any design tool which does the same thing? It’s a concept that’s certainly captured my mind. Now if only we could get that to output HTML…

If you’ve watched the demo videos and are returning to your own machine, you should quickily pick up just how right Numbers looks. A simple illustration of this is when you highlight a column, the sidebar comes up with a drag-and-drop of common formulas that might apply – simply pick up the Sum item from the sidebar and drop it in the required cell. A simple idea that will replace the existing mindset, the Lotus 1-2-3 method of hiding it away as a function that you have to “know”.

It’s no Excel, at least from the perspective I’ve seen at work on the trading floor, but when Steve Jobs said spreadsheets for the rest of us, he wasn’t wide of the mark.

New Theme

Sexy new theme – Redoable Lite. As nice as Unsleepable was, this is a bit more shiny =)

Now I Know Why Microsoft Access Sucks

So I spent nearly a whole day chasing a seemingly simple solution to a Microsoft Access problem, and I’ve finally found the officially sanctioned solution. Here it is.

Now, the non-geeks can go read the posts below, or wait for the next one. This post isn’t for you.

Have a quick read, my fellow software developers, especially the part about creating a form to supply parameters to a query. You’ll note the following steps:

1. Create a new form and add the controls needed for entering the parameters.
2. Modify your query so that it obtains its parameters from the controls on the form.
3. Add an OK button to the form that runs the query and then closes the form.
4. Add a Cancel button that closes the form without running the query.

Yes, you’re modifying the query so that it obtains its parameters from the controls on the form. This is a test to see how much attention you were paying in your software design classes (or indeed if you had any).

If you fail to see the problem, then clearly… you’re an Access developer (dare I say Microsoft Developer?). I now have nothing but disdain for you, and all Access MVPs. I’d assume someone would stand up and point out to Microsoft how bad it really is, but clearly you never realised.

If on the other hand, you’re now looking on in sheer terror, welcome to my frustration! What manner of infernal coupling is this?! Could it be that there’s no method to pass a variable?! Yes, dear friend, Access doesn’t let you pass a parameter to a query. Oh no, you must either bind a database element (the query) to a GUI element (the field on the form), or rely on the user to put in the value through a series of generic input dialog boxes.

Reuse? Bah!

Access is not so much a database system as an evil, evil lie.

</rant>

“Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”

The Daily Dish compares and contrasts the Nazi torture intensified interrogations with that of the current American regime

If this doesn’t convince you that what is happening at Gautanomo and was occurring at Abu Gharib is entirely wrong and unjustified, or that the Bush administration has totally sold-out the moral high ground (did they ever have it?) in the name of their own agenda, I’m not sure what will.

The similarities are stunning; will a future administration be brave enough to call them on it and convict? Or will it fundamentally remain as a sop to “Middle America”, the Red states whose votes count for so much, and be passed off as a phase of history, possibly regretted but never fully apologised for?

I wonder if the revulsion that so many have for the Nazi regime would ever turn on the torturers enhanced interrogators of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. I suspect not; the wrong-doers in this case are English speaking and elected by the majority, so they see too much of themselves in the current regime (those who are already angry are justifiably so). Also, it’s committed on “their own watch”; they re-elected these guys, despite it all.

What hath September 11 2001 wrought?

“Private” Schools

More Privilege for the Privileged: The Federal government has no claim to being a support of public education on the basis of the money they actually provide for it. To quote:

“[T]he budget shows public schools getting 31 per cent of the money while the private schools get 69 per cent. But public schools … have two-thirds of the enrolments.”

(That doesn’t take into account state spending on education, which makes up the bulk of it, but it is in contrast to the Whitlam Government, which started federal funding of education and biased spending appropriate to enrollment.)

“[T]he minimum grant per student paid to private schools ranked as the least needy is now far higher than the grant per student paid to public schools.”

So even the richest private schools get more money than the poorest publics.

“Australia is the only country where … public funding for private schools is the dominant function of the national government – and constitutes the largest item in its education budget.”

So it’s clearly something that we’re on the outer for. And finally:

“Howard has not imposed anything much in the way of conditions on the big grants he’s paying to private schools. What they do choose to do – such as continuing to impose hefty annual fee increases on their parents – is up to them. By contrast, he and his minister are always coming up with new conditions they want to impose on public schools, and always threatening to withhold grants if the states fail to comply.”

If that doesn’t show how stupid and unfair the education funding from the government is, I’m not sure what will.

New (Australian) Labor

The ALP has redesigned their logo – and it’s quite modern!

Interesting things to note from my perspective is that it retains key design cues from the old logo – the blue and red is still there, though the exact colours have been tweaked. They’re more muted, making it easier on the eye, although subtly. The colours reflect something more modern about it – it’s reflective of the latest trends on the web, though going (appropriately) against the garish/childish web 2.0 logos.

The shape has been squared off, but makes use of space – something that the previous logo actively worked against, incorporating logo elements with the text. Now, there’s clear separation – the Southern Cross and the Federation Star hold their own in the blue square, rather than being dominated by the text.

Also, perhaps unintentionally or perhaps intentionally, there’s a suggestion of the flag without the Union Jack – again, an element that on reflection was there in the previous logo, but not really exceptional. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, includes the flag explicitly – with the Union Jack. This may be a subtle appeal to the republican sentiment that still pervades the public.

Finally, the text is uncrowded – and explicit. No longer “ALP”, it is Australian Labor – and the Australian is subtle, too, putting the emphasis on the main name as it is relevant to most. The font is simple – I’m no expert on fontography, but it is very much in the Helvetica vein, and again harks to the web. By giving it space, the logo becomes simpler and more memorable.

The use of squares and the empty space also gives much flexibility – as demonstrated at the national conference that has just finished. The logo included the conference description without destroying the underlying brand, and it was used with the boxes side-by-side rather than stacked behind Rudd, reflecting its flexibility.

It’s a brand update in a simple and subtle way, without really needing a full reinvention, and its modern, web-like style means it holds its own in the wider arena of brands. Well done to the team behind the reinvention.

The Right to Maim and Murder

It’s something that I would have considered only a matter of time – and it did happen, tragically. And it’s not like it’s unprecedented, either.

Australia suffered something similar, nearly 10 years ago now. 35 people died in the Port Arthur massacre, and Australia, horrified that such an event could happen in this country, reacted: semi-automatic weapons, weapons which have no role outside of warfare and its horrors. If there’s one thing I’ll grant John Howard as Prime Minister, it’s that he reacted well and quickly, banning the weapons that could cause anything like the massacre again.

But the American President? He still supports the right to bear arms, and among many others focuses on the escape line: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Right, because people have been killing people for millennia, yeah? Sure, but guns make it a helluva lot easier.

There’s no need for me to be over-zealous, as the evidence speaks for itself. Gun fatalities in the US far outnumber that of any other country, and it does ultimately come down to the 2nd Amendment, the principle entitling such deadly devices to any resident. Why must the horror be allowed to continue? What reason remains such that Americans must arm themselves to a man? The amendment enshrined in the constitution served its purpose, when militia played an active role in the defence of the country, but has lost its relevance.

If the US hopes to prevent these tragedies in future, and to reduce the gun crime on the streets, the only way is to put in place measures such that these weapons which make it so easy to kill are controlled.

I don’t want to hijack the tragedy for the debate over gun control and the gun culture of the US, but the fact is that, were the gun laws stricter, this wouldn’t have happened. If nothing changes, again, the power of the gun lobby in US politics, and the value given to it over the lives of citizens, should be quite telling.