January 22, 2007
Bad, bad Sun
Here is what I got when I searched for "Eclipse download"...
It appears that Sun bought the keywords "eclipse", "download" and probably many other combinations and used it to plug NetBeans in sponsored search results.
January 17, 2007
Apple doesn't like Java, never has, probably never will
In a recent interview, Steve Jobs mentioned that the Apple phone didn't contain any Java:
Java's not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It's this big heavyweight ball and chain.
I find this statement quite ironic considering that Google Maps, which Jobs proudly showed during his keynote, is a Java application on all the other platforms, but at any rate, it just confirms the fact that Apple has never liked nor embraced Java, despite statements such as:
We're going to bring the Java platform back to the desktop in a really big way," said Jobs to enthusiastic applause. "We are working really hard to make Mac the best delivery vehicle for the Java platform on the planet. We're going to be there [with the Java platform] right out of the box, on your Mac.
-- Steve Jobs, June 2000
Apple never delivered on this promise. Quite the opposite, actually: ever since this keynote, Apple has been notoriously slow at releasing JDK's, and the recent deprecation of the Java Cocoa bindings is yet another clear indication that Steve Jobs wants you to program in Objective-C, not in Java. The height of irony is the claim from the Apple web site that:
Mac OS X is the only mass-market operating system that comes complete with a fully configured and ready-to-use Java Development Kit.
Notice the clever wording: "mass-market" (excludes Linux) and "ready-to-use" (excludes Windows). Amazingly, this claim is entirely accurate. Hats off to Apple's technical writers (and to be honest, Apple did recently release an early version of the JDK6, so it looks like the Java programmers inside Apple are finally having their way).
Back to Jobs' interview, the distortion field is in full force with the following statement:
You don't want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore.
In two sentences, Jobs manages to bash the PC, justify the phone lock-in and subtly push the blame on operators if something goes wrong. I can't say I blame him for that, especially after the Cingular CEO was heard claiming that they made "Apple bend" to their will, while all the evidence seems to indicate they basically signed a blank contract with Apple, and that even the Cingular executives didn't get to see the Apple phone until the keynote.
Still, I agree with Jobs about the overrated importance of being able to upload applications to phones for a mass market. If you ask random people on the street why they chose their current phone, the top two answers will be:
- It was free/cheap.
- It looks nice.
Meet these two criteria, and you get a chance at selling your phone to a lot of customers.
Still, there is a lingering paradox in the fact that Jobs is actually aiming for 1% of this one billion strong market. Is the Apple phone designed for high-end customers or the mass market?
The reality behind the Apple phone being a closed handset is actually quite simple, and it has nothing to do with the cellular network, nothing to do with Cingular, nothing to do with grand strategy or the slim chance that a third-party application might render the phone incapable of making calls : Apple wants to control everything on their phone.
I actually don't see anything wrong with that, and if the iPod is any indication, it's a strategy that has been working very well for Apple. If there's something we've learned about Steve Jobs over the past twenty years, it's that he always wants to have things his way. Sometimes, it works great (iPod, Mac), and sometimes, it fails spectacularly (NeXt). Where will the Apple phone score on this scale? If Apple can drop the price significantly within the first months of launch (under $250), they might hit their ten million targets. Otherwise, it will end up in the PDA niche.
Still, I can't help but wonder why Jobs is suddenly switching to this aggressive rhetoric. Bashing competitors (let alone partners) never results in anything good, and if anything, it makes you look insecure and unsure of the strengths of your own product.
Let's hope Steve Jobs won't follow in the footsteps of Mc Nealy and Ellison: their attitude might have made them millionaires, but it also stained their record in computer history forever.
January 16, 2007
After the storm
My previous story on stolen checks and Wells Fargo made it on Digg and Reddit, which resulted in a thorough pounding of my Web site.
The story in numbers:
- Number of page views: about 80,000
- Diggs: 1971 (beating my previous record on my Why Ruby on Rails won't become mainstream: 846).
- Blog comments: 190 (still trickling through).
- Digg comments: 180.
- Reddit points: 441.
- Reddit comments: 110.
- People who called me a moron: a lot.
- People who said that just because I work at Google doesn't mean I'm not a moron: 1.
- People telling me I shouldn't be using checks: not sure, but I bet most of them do not live in America (we unfortunately still need checks for too many things in this country).
- People telling me not to switch to Bank of America: a high enough number that Bank of America should probably consider improving their customer support.
- People telling me not to switch to Bank X or Y: at least one per American bank (don't we all have at least one horror bank story?).
- People telling me to switch to a credit union: quite a few.
- People telling me not to switch to a credit union: none (there's probably a lesson there).
- People actually getting the point of my post, which was to say that whether I report six or seven stolen checks, I should get the equal amount of protection from the bank: distressingly few.
Right now, I'm pondering the following puzzle: if you happen upon my post and you read through the hundreds of comments, you can't really miss the fact that a lot of people have already advised me against switching to Bank of America. What could possibly compel you to add comment #190 saying the same thing?
And finally, I'd like to end on two positive notes:
- I received an email from a Wells Fargo executive telling me they would
be addressing the problem I mentioned very soon.
- As I was following the progress of the opening of my Bank of America (BofA) account on their Web site, I noticed that it was possible to chat online with a representative. It was Friday night, so I can't say I even thought it remotely possible to be able to reach anyone at any financial institution, be it BofA, Wells Fargo or any other bank, so this left me quite impressed. I initiated the conversation, reached someone after a few minutes, and after verifying that it was indeed a human being, I was able to ask a few questions on the status of my new bank account. The person was very friendly, had impeccable spelling and answered all my questions satisfyingly.
Of course, it's easy to get impressed with the new girlfriend after getting out of an ugly relationship, but this is definitely convincing me to give BofA a shot. If anything, I already know for a fact that their online support is light years ahead of Wells Fargo's.
Here's to a hoping for a better banking experience for customers and banks alike.
January 12, 2007
Advice if your checks ever get stolen: don't tell your bank
I just had one of the most frustrating phone conversations with Wells Fargo I have had in a long time.
It's not the first time, and over the past months, Wells Fargo has managed to irritate me on so many little details that I was slowly beginning to consider closing my account with them. The only thing that held me back is the annoyance that comes with such a decision, since I already have quite a few automatic deposits and withdrawals on my checking account. I'm not afraid of transferring them to a new account, but I am concerned that I might forget to transfer one, which could result in defaulting on certain payments and some bad consequences for my credit history. So I tolerated their lame online banking site, tiresome phone support and the various fees that they slap me with for no reason now and then.
Not any more.
It started innocently: I ordered new checks two weeks ago, and a few days later, I noticed a box in my mailbox as I was heading out in the morning. I made a mental note that my checks had arrived and left, but when I came back at night, the box was no longer there. I looked in the various places that I might have put it, but it didn't turn up, so at this point, I decided that the safest course of action would be to call Wells Fargo, cancel these checks and order new ones. And of course, to monitor my account for any unexpected activity until the checks get canceled.
After dialing their number, punching in my account information (hint: keep saying "banker" until the automated system transfers you to a real human) and then repeating this info to the representative, I explain my problem to the person.
"I can certainly help you with that. How many checks did you say there were in the box?"
"I didn't say, and to be honest, I don't know".
"But would you say more than six?"
Uh? Does it really matter? Fine, I'll humor them.
"Well, there were probably a few checkbooks in that package, as you probably already know, so yes, I'd say there were most likely more than six checks. Why?"
"Well, we can't cancel more than six checks".
"Excuse me?"
"We can't cancel more than six checks, sir".
Of course you can, I think, although I can definitely picture this guy using an application that was written on a mainframe twenty years ago. Right now, he must be staring at a monochrome monitor showing six text fields and having to justify this to a slowly but increasingly aggravated customer over the phone that this is meant for their own protection.
"Are you serious? When I ordered the checks, you asked me what numbers I wanted, so you know exactly the range of these checks, can't you just cancel the whole range?"
"No, sir".
Long silence as I'm shaking my head in disbelief and contemplating my next step.
"So what are my options?"
"Your best bet is to close your account and open a new one".
"Are you serious?"
"Yes, sir"
"Look, closing my checking account is a big deal. I have been a customer for eight years, and I won't do that unless you can give me a very good reason".
"I'm sorry, sir, that's the only option. It's for your protection".
"No, the best option for my protection and my comfort is for you to cancel the range of checks you just sent me".
"We can't do that, sir"
I take a deep breath. I'm that close to raising my voice, something that I rarely ever do, but reason takes over and I calm down.
"Fine. I'll just reorder new checks".
I figure that if the checks have indeed been stolen and someone starts issuing them, I can always dispute them on the basis that they won't have my signature. How naive of me...
"Very well, sir, but before we do that, I need to bring my supervisor in".
"Really? Why?"
"Because she needs to confirm with you that you are waiving protection against fraudulent checks, sir".
"What?!?"
"If you don't mind holding, sir, I'll call her right now".
Pause. I'm on hold again. I'm beginning to tap my fingers nervously on my desk, because these last words certainly left me with a very uncomfortable feeling. I have no intention of waiving anything, and I hope this supervisor has a good explanation for what's going on.
"Hello sir, my name is April and I'm the supervisor. Do I understand correctly that you are waiving your protection against your stolen checks?"
"Hello April, and no, I'm not waiving anything. I just called to notify you that checks might have been stolen, and it's not my problem if your system can't cancel more than six checks at a time. Why would I suddenly waive a protection against fraudulent checks that's always been in effect ever since checks were created?"
"Sir, by calling us, you admit that you know your checks are stolen, so if you refuse to close your account per our advice, you are now liable for any check issued"
"Are you saying that I would still be covered if I hadn't called you?"
I'll spare you the five minutes of circular arguments that followed this question, during which she carefully avoided the question. I'm not one to let go, though, so I kept repeating my question, and she finally admitted:
"Yes, I understand where you are coming from, sir, but that's the way it is"
"You do understand how ridiculous this sounds? You are basically telling me that next time my checks get stolen, I'll get better protection if I don't call you".
"I'm sorry, sir", she said, carefully avoiding the question again.
"Let me ask you a different question: if Wells Fargo cashes a check that doesn't bear my signature, how can I be liable for it?"
"You wouldn't, sir, but since you called us to notify us that your checks were stolen..."
I interrupt her, since I know exactly where this is headed again.
"Hold on. Are you saying that Wells Fargo doesn't check for signatures at all?"
This is a trick question, because everybody knows that banks and financial institutions never check for signatures, which makes some kind of perverted sense. Sure enough, she dodges the issue again and she comes back to blaming me for calling them in the first place. I decide to change tactics and see if this gets me anywhere.
"To be honest with you, should Wells Fargo ever clear a check that doesn't bear my signature, I would go to court to protect my rights".
"You wouldn't be suing Wells Fargo in this case, sir, but the vendor".
"What?!?"
"Wells Fargo is only an intermediary, we just move money around. The person you'd have to sue is the vendor who accepted the check, or the person who issued the fraudulent check".
I don't even know where to start with this one, but it's pretty clear to me that I'm no longer the only one in this conversation trying to protect my butt.
"I understand that you will never admit this, especially since we are most likely on record, but I just want to emphasize how ridiculous I think this conversation and the whole situation is".
"So, should we put your account on hold, sir?"
"Wait, are you saying there is a middle ground? Could I disable checks for my account for a little while and then restore them in the near future?"
"Mmmh... no, sir, if we put your account on hold, it will eventually be closed"
I can't say I didn't see this coming.
"How about this idea then, is it possible to just refuse to cash any checks on this account for a period of time without leading to the closure of this account?"
"No, sir. Are you willing to close your account and open a new one, sir?"
"At this point, I'm very much willing to close my account, but I won't be opening a new one with Wells Fargo".
I politely thanked her, hang up, fumed for a little while at my desk and promptly opened an account with Bank of America. At the moment, I'm making a list of all the actions I need to take to make sure I transfer all my accounting to the new account, and I'm hoping I won't forget any.
Good bye, Wells Fargo, I won't miss you.
January 11, 2007
MacWorld 2007 shows the future of Apple... and it's not the Mac
Isn't it ironic that after several years sloughing through, just as the Mac and Mac OS are finally making timid but noticeable inroads in market shares, one of the most acclaimed MacWorld keynotes in years is a presentation that doesn't mention either even once in two hours?
To be honest, I'm surprised that the Apple fans are not more angry about that. I can certainly understand the excitement that the iPhone is generating, even though some dark spots are beginning to emerge now that the Jobs distortion field is wearing off, and it is indisputable that Apple has once again proven that their sense of innovation is very much alive. But if I were a long-time Apple fan, I would probably worry that the focus in Cupertino is slowly switching to everything that is not Mac-related: iPod, iPhone, Apple TV and probably more consumer electronic devices to be created in the next few years. The switch from Apple Computer Inc. to simply "Apple Inc" has to taste bitter to Mac OS lovers. Maybe next year's conference should be renamed AppleWorld?
Interestingly, even the most fanatical and devout fans were taken by surprise, including the notoriously loudmouth and bigot John Gruber, who made twelve predictions for Mac World, two of which being Apple TV and iPhone (which we already knew about) and the other ten about the Mac. All of them wrong.
No matter how good Mac OS is, it's still a bit behind Windows, and just as the gap is finally closing, not only is Windows about to receive a major upgrade that is going to set it back as the undisputed number one user interface / operating system , but it looks like as if it is approaching the final mile, Apple is suddenly feeling a pain in its lungs as it is slowly realizing that you don't win a race by making bursts of accelerations only when the public is watching, but by maintaining a steady and sustained pace throughout the entire event.
To me, this year's MacWorld's was both about Apple showing everyone that it is now a force to be reckoned with in the consumer electronics space and at the same time, raising the white flag in the computer and OS field and finally conceding that Mac OS will always be an also-ran. But it's okay because its users are so fanatical about the Cupertino company that they will probably keep buying and upgrading whenever they are told to, and I have no doubt on their ability to maintain their condescending and superior attitude toward everyone else no matter what.
And besides, despite its last minute slip, Mac OS still beat Linux, so there's at least that.
January 09, 2007
iPhone announced
Isn't it ironic that after several years sloughing through, just as the Mac and Mac OS are finally making timid but noticeable inroads in market shares, one of the most acclaimed MacWorld keynotes in years is a presentation that doesn't mention either even once in two hours?
To be honest, I'm surprised that the Apple fans are not more angry about that. I can certainly understand the excitement that the iPhone is generating, even though some dark spots are beginning to emerge now that the Jobs distortion field is wearing off, and it is indisputable that Apple has once again proven that their sense of innovation is very much alive. But if I were a long-time Apple fan, I would probably worry that the focus in Cupertino is slowly switching to everything that is not Mac-related: iPod, iPhone, iTV and probably more consumer electronic devices to be created in the next few years. The switch from Apple Computer Inc. to simply "Apple Inc" has to taste bitter to Mac OS lovers. Maybe next year's conference should be renamed AppleWorld?
Interestingly, even the most fanatical and devout fans were taken by surprise, including the notoriously loudmouth and bigot John Gruber, who made twelve predictions for Mac World, two of which being iTV and iPhone (which we already knew about) and the other ten about the Mac. All of them wrong.
No matter how good Mac OS is, it's still a bit behind Windows, and just as the gap is finally closing, not only is Windows about to receive a major upgrade that is going to set it back as the undisputed number one user interface / operating system , but it looks like as if it is approaching the final mile, Apple is suddenly feeling a pain in its lungs as it is slowly realizing that you don't win a race by making bursts of accelerations only when the public is watching, but by maintaining a steady and sustained pace throughout the entire event.
To me, this year's MacWorld's was both about Apple showing everyone that it is now a force to be reckoned with in the consumer electronics space and at the same time, raising the white flag in the computer and OS field and finally conceding that Mac OS will always be an also-ran. But it's okay because its users are so fanatical about the Cupertino company that they will probably keep buying and upgrading whenever they are told to, and I have no doubt on their ability to maintain their condescending and superior attitude toward everyone else no matter what.
And besides, despite its last minute slip, Mac OS still beat Linux, so there's at least that.
January 08, 2007
iPhone and streaming HDTV
I've been looking for a solution to stream high definition files to my TV for a while, and it looks like NetGear listened. Yesterday, they announced at the CES the EVA8000, which automatically discovers all your media files (they support all kinds of formats) on your Mac or PC, including HTDV content (the device has an HDMI connector).
Of course, it will definitely be worth waiting for the iTV announcement before making a final decision (which might not happen at Mac World, based on the latest rumors), but streamer devices are fairly common these days, so the the make-or-break feature will be support for high definition TV. Let's hope Apple delivers on that one.
Speaking of Apple, it's not exactly been a glorious past month:
- First, the backdating option scandal that is looming over the company
(Jobs seems to be fairly safe from it, but it doesn't mean other Apple
executives won't be impacted).
- Then the iTV, which Apple pre-announced six months ago, in a dramatic
break from their previous tradition (Apple never pre-announces anything,
they prefer to make big splashes at MacWorld). Some analysts called
this pre-announcement a "pre-emptive strike", others identified it as Apple
running scared that they might not come up with the iTV on time, a
hypothesis which definitely rings more and more true now, since you can bet
that NetGear won't be the only one announcing a streaming device at the CES.
- And finally, LinkSys announcing an iPhone family brand a month ago, thereby taking away the alleged name for Apple's rumored phone. To be honest, this speculation looks a bit silly to me: if Apple has been working on a phone, it's been for at least a year, and you can be sure they already knew back then that this name was already taken. Anyway, it's funny to see everyone, fans and non-fans alike, getting all excited over the issue.
Speaking of Apple's phone, assuming it's real, will it be successful?
On one hand, the inexplicable success of the RAZR is unequivocally proving that phone users are much more interested in the form factor than the UI. For having worked to make Gmail for Mobile work reasonably well on the RAZR for a while, I can tell you this is no picnic, and Motorola had to cut a lot of corners in order to make the RAZR look so good. Everything in this phone is crippled: memory, CPU, screen size and density, etc... And it's even worse in the SLVR.
Still, the RAZR has been one the best-selling phones these past years, so it's safe to assume that as long as the Apple phone looks cool, it will sell, regardless of how good the phone really is. Which doesn't mean that you can get away with anything when you make a phone. If Apple wants to be able to sell to the mainstream public (not only Mac users, which only represent less than 5% of computer users in America), they will have to make it possible to synchronize their phone with Outlook and all other kinds of Windows-specific software.
I wonder how Steve Jobs feels about that...
January 02, 2007
Find the bug
I know that making fun of the java.util.Calendar class is as cheap as laughing at the Darwin award winners , but I spent a half hour this morning debugging the following:
Calendar cal = Calendar.getInstance(); cal.set(2006, 12, 30, 8, 42); Assert.assertEquals(2006, cal.get(Calendar.YEAR)); // FAIL
Here is what's wrong with Calendar in this example, in order of increasing moronityTM:
- Indexing months starting at 0.
- Not throwing an exception when any of the passed values is invalid.
- When a passed value is invalid, returning a valid date that has nothing to do with the values passed in set().
And these lessons come from a three-line code sample using Calendar, which should give you a good idea why this class contains some of the worst code ever included in the JDK (only second to Vector extending Stack).
What's your vote for the worst JDK class?