Another way of looking at Twitter
Like most crusty old fogies who are not hip and with the times, I am aggravated and confused by the continued existence, and non-stop hyping, of Twitter. It has always seemed like an enormous waste of time and, worse, redundant: everything that people do with Twitter is stuff that I can already do with email, forums, and blogs, thank you very much.
However, I recently found a new way of looking at Twitter so that it makes more sense to me. I'm still not going to start using it or reading it or anything, but at least I can tolerate it now that I understand why it's important to other people.
I was in one of those cell-phone stores to buy a new phone charger. It was confusing and scary, because I really don't know anything about cell phones, and here they are selling hundreds of different ones, advertising features I don't understand using terminology I don't understand, and it was a Verizon place so this was all just one carrier, and if I wanted more choices I could have gone to a T-Mobile or AT&T store.
First I realized: Ohhhhh, this is how a lot of people feel about computers, isn't it. To me, computers are normal and cell phones are confusing; to other people it's the other way around.
Then I realized: For a lot of people, their cell phone is their computer. All the things I do with a computer, minus writing code, they do with the cell phone. Text messaging, which I always thought was really pointless, makes a lot more sense if I think of it as E-mail for people who have phones instead of computers.
Then finally: Twitter is for people who do text messaging. You can post to and read from Twitter using text messages; that's why the 140-character limit. That's not an incidental feature. If you use text messages instead of e-mail, then you've been missing a lot of the infrastructure that has been developed over the last few decades to make email usable, stuff e-mailers take for granted. Mailing lists, for instance. If you were a text-messager instead of an e-mailer, then you didn't have mailing lists until Twitter provided a way of doing essentially the same thing.
And not just mailing lists; also discussion forums and blogs. Twitter is a really simple protocol, and what people do with it is up to them: therefore it's flexible enough to effectively replicate all those various forms of Internet communication, plus other forms that are just being invented.
If you're a habitual computer user like me, and you've been online for a long time and are used to meeting all your social networking needs with email and websites, then Twitter seems redundant. But for cell phone users, the advent of Twitter made their cell phones a lot more powerful, a lot more like computers.
And you know, Iranian protesters probably wouldn't be carrying laptops at the moment when they spot the abuses of their government, but they would be carrying cell phones. So the fact that cell phones can now be broadcasters, thanks to Twitter, has to be a good thing.
Horrible buzzwords I noticed during this morning's endless series of speeches and keynote addresses:
- "Thought Leader"
- "Asks". "I'll leave you with three asks" instead of "I'll leave you with three questions".
- "Innovation". Oh my god. Every single speaker used the word "innovation" like eighty times. It's lost all meaning. You can tell because the basic work of making stuff, churning out code, releasing updated versions, adding features, etc. gets called "innovation" now. Makes me want to ask whether there is anything we could do that the managers wouldn't describe as "innovation".
- "Ideation". Means "having ideas", as in "let's have an ideation meeting". Note the subliminal assertion that you can force yourself to have ideas on your manager's schedule.
- "Around" to indicate a topic. As in, ideation "around" some idea or the challenges "around" some issue. This one's not unreasonable, but it is very noticeable.
- The classics "drill down" and "leverage" are still going strong.
- "Iterate" to mean "make improvements" or just "learn". Any process where you learn from your mistakes and get better is called an "iterative process". But doesn't that describe everything you do in life?
- Referring to what users do with our stuff as the "experiences" that we "deliver". As in "We need to deliver more compelling experiences!".
- "Space" to mean field or market, as in "the mobile space" to mean the cell phone market.
- Using "social" as a noun to mean, basically, "Facebook and possibly also Twitter". E.g. "The social space". "The experiments we're doing around social".
We have to ideate around integrating social into the experience we deliver on mobile so we can drive innovation and compete with the thought leaders in the space!
Guide to Silicon Valley Slang, part 4
- Buzz: popularity
- Traction: popularity
- Relevant: popular
- Disruptive: popular
- "An Incredible Brand": a popular brand
- To go viral: to get popular
- To scale up: to get popular and/or to deal with increasing popularity
Previous parts: 1 2 3
I can't believe TED gave this guy a podium oh wait yes I can
I don't know if TED has gone downhill or if they were never good in the first place, but geez do they promote a lot of pseudo-intellectual garbage.
A random TED talk has about as much intellectual content as picking a random book out of the non-fiction new releases and reading the blurb on the dust jacket. It makes you aware that an idea exists and that somebody is promoting it; that's about all.
Some individual TED talks are decent and even good -- just as that random book with the interesting dust-jacket blurb might actually be good -- but so many are junk that the TED brand is useless as an indicator of quality.
The marketing around TED is carefully designed to make you feel smart and superior for watching them. The production values, the big-name speakers, the high price of tickets, the illusion that you're part of an elite audience... all designed to flatter the viewer and make the contents seem like something more than the shallow sound-bites they are.
And the Silicon Valley culture seems to have eaten it up. "Did you see the TED talk about..." is a standard conversation-opener at work. People think they're an expert on some topic because they watched a guy give a ten-minute slideshow about it in front of a bunch of rich people. Giving a TED talk is the ultimate status symbol in this culture.
It doesn't hurt that TED has a serious ideological bias towards things that make the target audience of rich, mostly white, industry insiders feel good about themselves for being rich, mostly white, industry insiders.
Case in point: The Six Killer Apps of Prosperity, a talk by Niall Ferguson.
The title alone... Ugh.
He's trying to explain how "The West" got so far economically ahead of "The Rest". He's talking about the importance of social institutions, but he tells his mostly-software-industry audience "you can't understand institutions so I'm going to compare them to something you do understand". Does the audience even realize how badly he's insulting them?
His list is: Competition, science, property rights, modern medicine, consumer society, and work ethic.
It should be obvious that property rights, competition, work ethic, and the consumer society existed in plenty of pre-modern and non-western societies. And "modern medicine" is begging the question of how you get to the point of inventing modern medicine. But even if we let those points slide, there's a glaring ommision from this list. Think for second; can you spot it?
He illustrates the wealth gap by showing how for centuries Europe was relativeley poor, but in the 1850s the UK shot way ahead while China and India got much poorer.
Gee Niall Ferguson, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED IN THE 1850s THAT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY THE UK BECAME WEALTHIER RELATIVE TO CHINA AND INDIA? It's a complete mystery, I can't figure it out at all.
So yeah, he's forgetting the "Killer App" where you use your superior military to invade another country, take their natural resources, kidnap their people as slaves, force unequal trade treaties on them, and deliberatly hold their devleopment back with an unequal colonial administration designed to make them second-class citizens in their own country.
The countries that have the lowest human development indices today are almost all former resource-extraction colonies of European empires. The ones with the highest indices are Western Europe itself, its former settlement colonies, a few Mideastern oil states, and Japan -- which did quite a bit of colonialism of its own.
Colonialism isn't the whole explanation because it doesn't explain how Europe achieved its military advantage that allowed it to do all this conquest and extortion in the first place. And obviously some of the wealth gap is due to the Industrial Revolution starting in Europe, which probably does have something to do with science and competition and so on. But I am highly dubious of any explanation for "The West vs The Rest" that glosses over the fact that The West spent centuries literally stealing wealth from The Rest.
Gee Niall Ferguson, WHY AM I SO MUCH RICHER THAN MY NEIGHBOR WHOSE HOUSE I JUST ROBBED? It must be because of my superior work ethic and my respect for property rights!
Ferguson brings up imperialism only to dismiss it with a couple of glib sentences. He says imperialism can't be the answer because "Asia had empires too" and because the peak of the wealth gap came in the 1970s, after colonialism ended.
These explanations are incredibly weak. Asia had empires too, yes; and in their day they were extremely wealthy and effective! If there were TED talks in the 16th century they would be attmepting to explain why Ming China and the Ottoman Empire were so far ahead of backwards Europe. All this comparison proves is that the advantage of empire doesn't last forever. Also the Ottomans and the Mings didn't have a military advantage over their neighbors remotely comparable to the military advantage that colonial Europe had over Africa and the Americas.
The wealth gap peaking in the 1970s? A mere few decades after the end of World War 2 and the beginning of the slow process of decolonization? When the rich nations had just finished reaping all the benefits of colonialism and the newly independent former colonies were just beginning their climb out of poverty? This is exactly when we would expect the wealth gap to peak if colonialism was the main reason for it. Ferguson is actually undermining his own argument by pointing out this fact.
And this illustrates the problem with TED: the format of TED videos makes this kind of sleight-of-hand easy to pull off. A couple of pretty slides, a nerdy joke or two to disarm the audience, and an appeal to your authority as a Famous Person are all it takes to paper over fundamental weaknesses in your argument.
There's a lot more to pick apart in Ferguson's terrible TED talk. Nobody should be surprised that he worships Adam Smith, but taking time to insult Gandhi for being poor? Classy.
Then he tops himself, when talking about property rights (which he says are more important than democracy itself: an interesting glimpse into the priorities of the ultra-rich.) He says one of the reasons America was able to "generate" so much wealth is because "most people in rural North America owned some land". Uh, yeah, they had lots of land after fucking stealing it from the American Indians. He's using land taken by force, and taken by broken treaties, as his example of the importance of property rights. Which presumably include the right to not have your property stolen. The audacity of this guy!
Then we get to the moral panic -- "is the west deleting its own apps?" OH NO! Here is a picture of some teenagers wearing hoodies! I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove, unless it's a clever way to invoke racism against black teenagers without actually showing any black teenagers. Ferguson then talks about the rest of the world catching up, which is a wonderful thing, a happy thing, what we should all be hoping for. Then he segues straight into "but Western decline isn't inevitable". Interesting that he equates worldwide equality with Western "decline", like we're only doing OK as long as we can keep the rest of the world poor.
He finishes with a picture of Obama bowing to Hu Jintao to illustrate that the great divergence is over. (Like no world leader ever bowed to another world leader during the last two centuries? It's a meaningless gesture to grease the wheels of diplomacy.) Nice way to invoke both Siniphobia and the baseless right-wing meme of Obama being apologetic for America.
So that's Ferguson's TED talk. That's the kind of thing TED thinks deserves a megaphone.
Ferguson teaches at Harvard. He's not dumb. He's not overlooking the history of colonialism by accident; he's trying to construct an explanation of the wealth gap that very specifically avoids mention of colonialism. This is part of a project to whitewash history, to promote a world view where the rich and the privileged are not beneficiaries of historical injustice but rather deserve to be rich and privileged due to their superior moral qualities.
That TED gave him a pulpit for this project says a lot about TED. Either they share his views, or they just don't care. At the very least, it says that TED doesn't care enough for this massive level of intellectual dishonesty to disqualify anyone from speaking there.
I have written software that has been featured in a TED talk on two different occasions: Ubiquity was shown off in a TED talk by Aza in 2009, and Collusion in a TED talk by the Mozilla CEO in 2012. But after seeing this video, I'm embarassed to have been associated with TED in any way.
Your website is not "Zen"
Hey Silicon Valley marketers!
Did you know that "Zen" is an actual religious practice? It's not just a cool-sounding word for "simple"?
Whenever I hear somebody describe a website or user interface as "Zen" because it has a lot of whitespace, I die a little inside.
Unless your website is whacking me with a stick while I sit in seiza position and meditate, or using koans to shock my mind out of reliance on logic and binary thinking, or otherwise helping me reach enlightenment through direct experience in the tradition of 6th-century Buddhist monk Bodhidharma, it is not Zen.
Most recent offender is something called Zendesk; passed a billboard for it today, which shows a grotesque caricature of a hideous grinning Buddha wearing a telephone headset. I'm not personally offended by portrayals of religious figures but I ask you: try to imagine a picture of Jesus Christ flipping burgers on a fast-food-chain billboard, and then try to think of a reason why one should be any more acceptable than the other.
Now I'm thinking about what an actual Zen customer-support line would be like. Can you imagine?
"I can't log in to my account, can you help me?"
"The teachings of the way are merely a finger pointing at the moon; you must discover the truth for yourself."
"No, seriously, I really need to get in here and check my payment status."
"Your suffering comes from your desire for a state of logged-in-ness, but all binary distinctions are illusion; in reality there is no difference between logged in and logged out."
(Customer hangs up)
Why every website looks the same these days
I'm working on an official Studio Xia website. I've been following this tutorial I found called How to Make Your Site Look Half Decent in Half an Hour, by Anna Powell-Smith. It's aimed at programmers who don't know the first thing about graphic design (that's me) but who know they need to pretty up their site.
She's provided some cool tricks and links to good resources, so I'm grateful for that, even though her aesthetic advice isn't really to my taste.
Step One is "Use Bootstrap", where Bootstrap is an open-source collection of basic html/css/js (made by Twitter) that you can use to get up and running quickly. Once I got through the first few steps of the tutorial, I suddenly understood why 3/4 of the websites made in the last 4 years seem to look almost identical. They're all using Bootstrap! (And the other 1/4 are using default Wordpress or Tumblr themes.)
Bootstrap does give you some basic accessibility features, like responsiveness to different screen sizes, so more of that makes the Web a nicer place. But I kind of miss the old days when every web page was a unique expression of its creator's (lack of) taste.
Rocket Science Games - a tale of corporate hubris and epic failure
When browsing the web today I found a retrospective by serial entrepreneur Steve Blank about a failed startup company he started 20 years ago, and the lessons he learned from its failure.
The company was called Rocket Science Games.
Wait a minute... I think I've heard of them. Back in 1993-94 I saw some magazine article about how they were going to revolutionize gaming by fusing Hollywood with Silicon Valley and bringing cinematic storytelling to games, or some buzzword-laden hype like that.
What this meant in practice is that they released a few desultory CD-ROM rail-shooters and Myst clones packed with horrible grainy video clips and lousy gameplay, then disappeared without a trace.
Here's a Wired article about them from the time.
It's fascinating to read the inside story directly from the CEO responsible for this fiasco. He admits his hubris led to their destruction. Rocket Science thought they were hot shit because they built cutting-edge video compression tools to stream FMV off of a CD-ROM faster. They spent millions of dollars building a cool office in San Francisco and hiring all these hotshot Hollywood scriptwriters and cinematographers. But nobody was in charge of game design. It's like they didn't even know game design was a thing. The CEO never even asked to see the gameplay of the games they were making!
He obviously didn't know the first thing about video games, and from his retrospective it seems like he still doesn't. He can barely conceal his contempt for gaming and gamers (neither can the author of that Wired article). He talks about gameplay like it's just some button-mashing to be grudgingly included in between their beautiful video clips. Everybody involved had this attitude that gaming was a terrible adolescent boy pastime about mindless violence and they were going to come in and elevate it with their highbrow focus on Story.
It certainly provides some insight into why the CD-ROM game craze of the mid-90s happened, and why most of the games so quickly ended up in the bargain bin; they were funded by people riding a hype bubble who didn't particularly want to be making video games at all and lacked the curiosity to try to understand what they were making.
If your prime directive is "must use all these video clips" and nobody's in charge of game design then you're going to turn out rail shooters and Myst clones by default (two of the shallowest, most boring, most mindless game genres).
A company that's 100% focused on the technology gimmick they're trying to push and 0% focused on what their potential customers actually want from a product will, unsurprisingly, make things that nobody wants.
Bitcoins!!! Definitely the currency of the future and not a speculative bubble at all!
You may have seen recently that Bitcoins lost half of their value in one day. This may have frightened you into thinking that Bitcoins are no longer a safe retirement plan! You might be thinking that Bitcoin is nothing more than an interesting experiment in solving the "double spend" problem of virtual currency without a centralized verification service. You might even think Bitcoin is a giant scam designed to take money from naiive libertarians!
Fear not. I'm here to reassure you that Bitcoins are the future! Just consider all the advantages that Bitcoin has over your precious "fiat currency" with its "governments" and their "laws" and "regulations":
- A great incentive to learn computer security and maintenance, since you lose all your money if your hard drive crashes!
- Exchange rate vs fiat currency fluctuates by orders of magnitude from day to day, making it impossible to plan purchases or budget anything!
- Great for money laundering, black-market purchases of illegal goods, and income tax evasion! You can anonymously buy illegal drugs, child pornography, and bomb-making materials!
- If you want to buy food or clothes or pay rent you'll have to exchange your Bitcoins for dollars first, but this is just a temporary inconvenience until MacDonalds and Wal-Mart start accpeting Bitcoins, which they'll have to start doing any day now or they'll be left out in the cold when Bitcoin replaces all government fiat currency!
- Nobody can help you if you're a victim of fraud. Fraud prevention would require non-anonymous transactions and/or a central authority to resolve disputes, both of which are contrary to FREEDOM! Fraud is just part of The Free Market, so get used to it! Caveat Emptor, statists!
- Mathematically guaranteed to be deflationary, since there's a finite supply and Bitcoins will go out of circulation over time due to computer failures. Nobody in this utopian virtual economy of the future will want to spend Bitcoins on goods or services when they could be hoarding their Bitcoins to sell later! Don't you know that "incentives to hoard" are an important part of any exchange medium?
- Since they're super cheap right now, this is a great time to trade all your fiat currency for Bitcoins. Do it now, so you can get in on the next bubble! Wait did I say bubble? I meant completely justified increase in value, driven by all the people abandoning fiat currency for Bitcoins! A heavily hyped-up asset whose price shoots up by thousands of percent in a short time with no change to the underlying fundamentals is always a good stable currency and not a speculative bubble at all! The one who benefits from the next price increase will definitely be you, and not one of the early adopters who's been hoarding massive amounts of BTC since the easy-mining days, waiting for a chance to cash out. Listen to those guys, they're smart. When they tell you to buy BTC and thereby increase the value of the BTC they already hold, they only have your best interests at heart.
- Be part of an exciting online community! Join your fellow internet anarchists and Ron Paul fans and have fun ranting about the evils of the Federal Reserve, "fiat currency" (AKA any money not made of gold), and "coercion" (AKA living in a country with laws). Hoard ammunition and canned food to prepare for the imminent collapse of the U.S. economy due to "socialism" (AKA any government that collects taxes to pay for services).
- Did you know that dollars haven't been backed by gold since the 1970s? They're, like, just pieces of paper with no inherent value, man! Did I just blow your mind??? They're "fiat currency" which means the government could print as many as they want! And I bet the government is just itching for a chance to undermine its own authority by intentionally making its own currency worthless with massive economy-destroying inflation! They're probably going to start doing that any day now! Wake up, sheeple!
- But with Bitcoins, the supply is limited to 21 million! That's all the Bitcoins that will ever exist, thanks to the arbitrary will of some anonymous computer geek nobody's ever met who goes by the pseudonym of "Satoshi Nakamoto"! That means that Bitcoins are literally as good as gold, because the value of a currency depends entirely on scarcity and not on what people are willing to trade you for it (Don't listen to those economists who say the gold standard is a stupid idea. They're trying to trick you!)
- Feel like a big shot when your "mining rig" (thousands of dollars worth of graphics cards and power supplies) manages to cryptographically "mine" its first bitcoin after running for just a month! Sure you've lost money, but everybody on Reddit will be real impressed!
- You might think all the decentralization would make Bitcoins inconvenient to use, but don't worry: the fans of decentralization have settled on a single centralized place to trade your decentralized currency! It's called MTGOX which stands for Magic: The Gathering Online Exchange (because it was created for trading Magic cards and then pivoted to trading Bitcoins) and despite its reputation for horrible lag, a huge majority of all exchange between BTC and USD go through MTGOX -- giving MTGOX all the power of a central bank, with none of the benefits and none of the responsibility. MTGOX may even be manipulating the Bitcoin exchange rate for their own financial benefit.
- There is no way the government could ever crack down Bitcoins, because they're anonymous and decentralized! If they shut down one Bitcoin exchange, another will arise to take its place! Viva la revolucion! Nobody can stop our glorious free market! Sure, they could crack down on the endpoints where people exchange BTC for US dollars, making it impossible to exchange Bitcoins for goods and services from the real-life economy, but who cares! We don't want your worthless US dollars anyway! We can get everything we need on our online black market! (All a healthy economy needs is drugs, porn, server space, and Reddit karma, right?)
- Never pay taxes again! When the IRS tries to collect, tell them that your income was $0 last year! Since you took payment only in pretend internet money and not dollars, they can't tax you anything! There is no way the IRS will charge you taxes based on an estimate of the dollar value of your income, nor will they be able take your ass to court for tax evasion when you refuse to pay up. No, the IRS will be totally stymied by a simple technicality. Bitcoins are untaxable!
- Learn the hard way why the real-world financial system has all of the regulations and safeguards that it has built up over the last few centuries! Sure you could learn about speculative currency bubbles, pump-and-dump schemes, and Ponzi scams from a book, but isn't it more exciting to be a part of it yourself and learn from first-hand experience?
That's why Bitcoin is sure to replace all government fiat currency any day, I tell you, any day now! You'd be a fool not to trade your dollars for BTC.
(Buy mine? Please?)
Why I Hate iPads
In the comments to a previous post, Ben asks:
"What's wrong with iPads?"
iPads crushed my dream of being a software usability guy.
It's hard for me to find the words to express why, so bear with me while I try to explain what iPads meant for my career.
My professional life in the software industry (first at Humanized, then at Mozilla) was all based around one question. It went something like:
"How can we make computers easier to learn without making them less powerful?"
"How can we give users more power without making their software harder to use?"
By "power" I don't mean gigaflops, I mean something more like the "empowerment" sense of the word. Creative power. The potential of computers to help people create things, to be a producer and not just a consumer of culture, to be smarter and more efficient and more connected and maybe even more able to self-organize and demand change from their governments or whatever. All the potentials that people used to mean when they talked about the "computer revolution".
By making computers easier to use without dumbing them down, that power could be democratized, made accessible to more people. That was my theory, anyway. Thinking about it that way made me feel like I was working on something important. The idea of this search was the source of my job satisfaction.
(Naiive techno-utopianism, in retrospect.)
When the iPad came out, at first I ignored it. Why would anybody want an iPhone that was too big to fit in your pocket and doesn't make phone calls? I had zero interest in iPhones and iPads seemed strictly inferior. I figured they'd disappear without a trace within a month.
When they started getting popular -- when every other company in the industry started scrambling to follow Apple's lead -- I slowly realized the horrifying truth:
The computer industry was no longer interested in searching for a balance between power and usability. The new trend was to make a thing super easy to use by taking away all of the power. Instead of making computers easier to use, they'd give people things that are not really computers anymore, but appliances.
Yeah technically they're "computers" in that they have a Turing-complete CPU inside them. But tablets are what you get if you strip away everything that made me interested in computers in the first place -- the ability to hack the thing, to reprogram it, to run whatever software you want, to use it to make creative works and share them.
Instead, with iPads and the "app store", it's Apple, not you, who decides what software you are allowed to run on this machine that you supposedly own. (Which by the way is far more restrictive than anything Microsoft ever did at its most monopolistic -- at least Microsoft would let you distribute whatever software you wanted for Windows. They might clone your product and crush you if you got too successful, but at least you were allowed to try.)
Also, the touchscreen UI and lack of a real filesystem or decent inter-app communication channels make it terrible for trying to create any kind of content. Trying to type words on it sucks. Trying to draw on it sucks. (Yes, I know you can attach an external keyboard. Congratulations, you've created the world's crappiest laptop.) The touchscreen UI is really only good for poking icons and panning/zooming through static content. It's an interface optimized for passive consumption.
Ironically, when I first heard "Apple is making a tablet" I imagined a thing optimized for drawing on. You know, like with a pressure-sensitive stylus and high-quality art software. Silly me; that's what Apple of 1984, the company focused on education and creativity, would have built. The Apple of 2010 is focused on being the middleman for streaming music, games, and TV shows, so that's what they built. An appliance for consuming streams of corporate-approved entertainment product.
iPads and other tablets are more similar to a new kind of television than to the computer revolution I imagined. The industry's recent obsession with them -- the "post-PC era" -- is a direction I have no interest in following. Feel free to laugh at me for being an old fogey who can't adapt with the changing times, but I wanted to make computers easier to use, not replace them with fancy TVs. If the industry doesn't want that anymore, then maybe I had no place in the industry.
Ultimately, the iPad posed a serious philosophical challenge to my whole narrative about democratizing the creative potential of computers. If the iPad got really popular, if most people saw this new appliance class as an acceptable substitute for a computer, that meant that most people are not interested in hacking or creating -- they're content with a locked-down, corporate-controlled internet media consumption device. The computer revolution I had imagined was never going to happen, because the people I thought I was fighting for didn't want it.
April 2010, when the iPad was released, marked the beginning of the end of my software developer career. I spent another year and a half trying to figure out some way to respond to this philosophical challenge, some way to fix my narrative, to get my job satisfaction back, to imagine a future for myself in that industry. (Tablets were not the only trend driving this; equally distressing was the software industry's move to an advertising-centric model that I find ethically dubious. But that's another blog post.)
By fall of 2011 I had given up. I'd accepted that my dream of being a software usability guy was based on phony assumptions, and that the role I had imagined for myself had no place in the post-PC era. I hung around Mozilla long enough to finish up my projects and then I walked away from the industry.
In short, iPads challenged what I thought computers were all about. They made me re-examine why I was ever interested in computers in the first place. And in that re-examination I realized that most of my reasons were no longer valid.
So maybe it's not quite right to say I "hate" iPads. Maybe I should really be thanking Apple for making me realize that software was not the right career for me and giving me the impetus to break away and search for something new.