Been using computers for over 25 years now and I have no interest in putting my life on display for the world.
...
So yes, I'm also glad Apple is staying focused on software for professional users and steering clear of the fickle world of social networking.
You know, I've also been using computers for 25 years and your post suddenly makes me think I NEED a MySpace page along with Plaxo and LinkedIn.
Because when you start to "not get" technological changes all you're good for anymore is management. Your innovation days are done.
It is my opinion that tech folks need to understand the past and be able to envision the future based on indicators in the present.
How many computer folks know how far in the future what we have today was prototyped? If you have time check out this video of a lecture by Alan Kay that displays videos from 1962.
And, for whatever it's worth, I don't care for social networking myself. I have no MySpace or Facebook account and I don't share personal information or photos on-line. If I want somebody to see a picture, I send them an e-mail. I couldn't care less that Apple is not pursuing this; I'd rather they didn't, in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O
Wouldn't it be great if your address book was being updated by your contacts themselves?
Holy cow, I can't tell whether your post is sarcastic or not.
Either way, how absolutely scary and stupid that would be to allow people access to my personal address book -- even if somehow we believe it would be secure enough to protect against messing with other entries (most net security is a joke), what if I don't want people looking at or fricking with MY data?!
Besides, do you want others to be able to poke through private info of your friends? Do THEY want that? Even if you believe such sites are secure (ha), when you put your friends/contacts info in an online database (like Yahoo/plaxo/etc) you have just given someone else's personal info to a 3rd party, usually without their permission. The managing/hosting companies have 100% access to all the data, and in many cases can use your contact data for other purposes. So you just gave your friends' personal info to the company. Think about that before you put someone else's personal information online. Privacy policies? Ugh, don't get me started.
If anyone put my contact info in Plaxo I would beat the shit out of them verbally and cut contacts. Oh wait, I've already done that once....
Been using computers for over 25 years now and I have no interest in putting my life on display for the world.
...
So yes, I'm also glad Apple is staying focused on software for professional users and steering clear of the fickle world of social networking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You know, I've also been using computers for 25 years and your post suddenly makes me think I NEED a MySpace page along with Plaxo and LinkedIn.
Because when you start to "not get" technological changes all you're good for anymore is management. Your innovation days are done.
Just because someone doesn't want to put their life on permanent display (remember, "The internet never forgets!"), doesn't mean they "don't get" tech changes. I am very involved in this field, and understand it deeply. And partly -because- of that, will never, ever post personal stuff in a public blog, flog, etc.
Remember too, that when you post pictures and information about your kids online, you are probably doing so without their permission. Would you like it if your parents started posting stupid old pictures of you when you were a kid, or a teen? Along with associated drivel commentary? Hmm.
BTW, Jens Alfke is one hell of a developer. They are losing a great asset.
Holy cow, I can't tell whether your post is sarcastic or not.
Either way, how absolutely scary and stupid that would be to allow people access to my personal address book -- even if somehow we believe it would be secure enough to protect against messing with other entries (most net security is a joke), what if I don't want people looking at or fricking with MY data?!
I think you've taken quite a leap. Of course such a hypothetical system would be limited to the person updating their own information, not being able to see or change anyone else's information. I would think that such restrictions would be assumed.
Good rant Blah. I may be an old foggy, but I too am concerned about the invasion of privacy that the current batch of social networking sites represent. I wonder how much of this will be around in ten years when the kids driving these sites develop their own senses of privacy.
I think you've taken quite a leap. Of course such a hypothetical system would be limited to the person updating their own information, not being able to see or change anyone else's information. I would think that such restrictions would be assumed.
That such restrictions should remain permanent and inviolate should also not be assumed.
You should always assume that anything you let out of your personal control will become public at one time or another.
That such restrictions should remain permanent and inviolate should also not be assumed.
I think you misunderstand here. One person suggested an idea, and another person flew off the handle by interpreting it to mean something much broader when there was no such basis to assume that.
Just because someone doesn't want to put their life on permanent display (remember, "The internet never forgets!"), doesn't mean they "don't get" tech changes. I am very involved in this field, and understand it deeply. And partly -because- of that, will never, ever post personal stuff in a public blog, flog, etc.
Remember too, that when you post pictures and information about your kids online, you are probably doing so without their permission. Would you like it if your parents started posting stupid old pictures of you when you were a kid, or a teen? Along with associated drivel commentary? Hmm.
What you choose to expose is up to you. Personal stuff, professional stuff, hobby stuff are all valid options for disclosure in a blog, flog, etc. The level of exposure is likewise controllable. MySpace/Facebook != life on permanent display unless you choose to make it so.
Understand that how kids interact and network today reflects the general way they will interact and network tomorrow as adults. If you believe in the "game generation gap" as postulated by Beck and Wade then you likely will believe that a "social networking gap" will appear as a significant behavior divide between the iGeneration and the oldest GenY members or youngest GenX cohort members (and not just Baby Boomers).
I guess I mostly was responding to the idiocy of the comment about Apple "staying focused on software for professional users" .
Plus, having used computers for 25 years is not a positive metric for computer experience. In fact it's probably a negative metric. All it says is that you're old.
Quote:
BTW, Jens Alfke is one hell of a developer. They are losing a great asset.
I agree. But Apple has lost an amazing amount of talent over the years and yet manages to find or foster new ones. After 19 years, he probably needs to move on anyway.
I think you've taken quite a leap. Of course such a hypothetical system would be limited to the person updating their own information, not being able to see or change anyone else's information. I would think that such restrictions would be assumed.
Of course, but most data security these days is a joke. And one of the big things I was trying to point out is that with managed online personal-info datastores members are "tricked" into giving OTHER people's personal information to the keepers of the data, even if it is otherwise secure. Offline, in-person, would you give out your friends' phone numbers to other people they didn't know without getting permission first? Some people do, but that's disgustingly rude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee
That such restrictions should remain permanent and inviolate should also not be assumed.
You should always assume that anything you let out of your personal control will become public at one time or another.
Wow, thank you. Much more eloquent and concise than what I had posted earlier. I need you as a ghost writer. ;-)
It is true that Apple is secretive about product development. It makes sense that they'd institute a policy preventing employees from blogging about company products or procedures in order to protect their intellectual property. We all know how Apple's products get copied after release. Imagine if leaked info on one of those great products somehow "got out" before products are produced? Violating such a policy could be considered industrial espionage and therefore would open up the violator to a host of consequences that are easily avoided.
As one who is a member of and a participant on several social networking sites (with both a Mac and PC) I'm not sure what the big deal is about creating "social networking applications". Facebook, Myspace, and the others already do that themselves. There is no incentive for Apple to build social networking applications. The current social networking applications in use are all web based and created by either the site hosts or third parties. They already work on the Mac. There is no profit in this for Apple.
I am in no way defending Apple's Policies and procedures or Steve Jobs in any way, but as we all know, if we don't like the policies and procedures of the company we work for, we can definitely leave that company and go elsewhere. There are DEFINITELY worse places to work than Apple, I can assure you
Of course, but most data security these days is a joke. And one of the big things I was trying to point out is that with managed online personal-info datastores members are "tricked" into giving OTHER people's personal information to the keepers of the data, even if it is otherwise secure. Offline, in-person, would you give out your friends' phone numbers to other people they didn't know without getting permission first? Some people do, but that's disgustingly rude.
I think that is quite different from my mental image of the system. I can see why you wouldn't want anybody else to peruse all of your address book, that's clearly a bad idea, but mr O's post certainly didn't necessarily suggest anything like that.
My mental image of the system is such that I enter person A into my address book. Person A can change and see their own information in my address book, but no one else's. I do the same with person B. With what I envisioned, neither A nor B know about the other person or whether or not they're really in my address book. Even if person A's account is compromised, all they'll get is person A's information.
The security can be a concern though, if the server (not just a user account) is compromised then that's a problem.
It's easier to distribute updated vcards, but therein lies a problem because most vcards are distributed over the internet as plain text.
What you choose to expose is up to you. Personal stuff, professional stuff, hobby stuff are all valid options for disclosure in a blog, flog, etc. The level of exposure is likewise controllable. MySpace/Facebook != life on permanent display unless you choose to make it so.
This is just not true. If you put information online, then anyone who has access to that data can easily propagate that information. Happens all the time, I'm surprised you would make such a statement.
Quote:
Understand that how kids interact and network today reflects the general way they will interact and network tomorrow as adults.
You state this as if it's a fact, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Yes, there is a "social networking gap", and it will continue to evolve over the coming decades. No doubt. But to assume people behave the same when they are kids and teens as they do as adults is just silly. Most kids/teens (and even young adults) behave very differently as compared with when the "grow up". Risk taking goes down, responsibility goes up, personalities change greatly. That's life.
Most people don't understand this until they experience it themselves, i.e. after growing up, having their own family, etc.
Quote:
Plus, having used computers for 25 years is not a positive metric for computer experience. In fact it's probably a negative metric. All it says is that you're old.
Heheh. I understand the gist, and there's some truth there. But while I agree that having used computers for 25 years should not necessarily be a positive metric, neither should it be a negative one. There are "fuddy-duddies" and there are "enlightened old-timers". All else equal, having more years of life experience is a good thing. And yes, all else is not always equal.
I think you misunderstand here. One person suggested an idea, and another person flew off the handle by interpreting it to mean something much broader when there was no such basis to assume that.
Maybe we got off on a tangent here but his concern is real. And the broader implications of ideas and methods need to be considered and addressed. Especially issues like privacy and personal security. Remember the story of the camels nose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
What you choose to expose is up to you. Personal stuff, professional stuff, hobby stuff are all valid options for disclosure in a blog, flog, etc. The level of exposure is likewise controllable. MySpace/Facebook != life on permanent display unless you choose to make it so.
I agree, we do have a generational issue. But one of the responsibilities the older generation has is to make the younger generation slow down and think about what it is they are doing. And while not totally against MySpace, FaceBook and the others I do think the kids are putting way to much information onto these sites. The main problem in my mind is that kids (both living at home and at college) do not have any privacy, have never been granted any privacy and do not understand the need for personal privacy. This comes latter when they move out of their childhood home and start creating individual lives for themselves. It will be interesting to see what happens when the MySpace/FaceBook generation reach thirty and have fully developed senses of privacy.
Ok, for this out of touch old foggy, does the term social networking include applications besides MaySpace and its ilk? And if so what are they and what do they do? And like an earlier poster, I completely freak at the idea of anyone coming in and altering MY data.
--
Remember what goes online stays online. And what is online will become public.
I think that is quite different from my mental image of the system. I can see why you wouldn't want anybody else to peruse all of your address book, that's clearly a bad idea
In all these systems, the hosting company can peruse through all of everyone's data. That's creepy enough!
Quote:
My mental image of the system is such that I enter person A into my address book. Person A can change and see their own information in my address book, but no one else's. I do the same with person B. With what I envisioned, neither A nor B know about the other person or whether or not they're really in my address book. Even if person A's account is compromised, all they'll get is person A's information.
Nah, if person A's account is compromised that includes their own data and all the other people in their address book. i.e. If your account is compromised then person A and person B and everyone else just had their data spilled.
Quote:
The security can be a concern though, if the server (not just a user account) is compromised then that's a problem.
Yes, the above issues are bad enough, but this is what really sucks about these systems. It happens all the time, and with far more secure systems than these (banks, etc). And the worst part is that it takes only -one- person to enter your personal data into one of these sites without your permission, and that's that. Sucks.
Quote:
It's easier to distribute updated vcards, but therein lies a problem because most vcards are distributed over the internet as plain text.
Never said it would be easy. ;-)
Today's society seems to value convenience over privacy (and practically everything else, it seems!). I have no problem if people put their own information online. The problem is that some systems exist primarily to encourage users to put OTHER people's personal info online (plaxo, et al), and that's just unacceptable.
I think that is quite different from my mental image of the system. I can see why you wouldn't want anybody else to peruse all of your address book, that's clearly a bad idea, but mr O's post certainly didn't necessarily suggest anything like that.
And this is why Blahs' response was appropriate. He saw the issue from a different angle. For important issues like security and privacy we need to consider all these angles, including the ones we didn't think of, before jumping off and doing something stupid.
You just pointed out my problem with Address Book sharing. Its all or nothing. You either share everything with everybody, or nothing with nobody. A typical user will have several classes of contacts; Work, Friends, Family, Extended Family and Personal/Private. I would like to be able to share subsets of my contacts instead of the whole batch.
Quote:
My mental image of the system is such that I enter person A into my address book. Person A can change and see their own information in my address book, but no one else's. I do the same with person B. With what I envisioned, neither A nor B know about the other person or whether or not they're really in my address book. Even if person A's account is compromised, all they'll get is person A's information.
Ah, but then a door gets open into your account and your account gets compromised. The best defense is not to provide the door in the first place.
Quote:
The security can be a concern though, if the server (not just a user account) is compromised then that's a problem.
Assume this. Always assume that the servers will be compromised at one time or another. Then when they are, you have no problem. Or at least one that you have already anticipated.
Quote:
It's easier to distribute updated vcards, but therein lies a problem because most vcards are distributed over the internet as plain text.
i still don't understand why encryption has not been made a standard part of email. The tools have been there for nearly twenty years now.
This is just not true. If you put information online, then anyone who has access to that data can easily propagate that information. Happens all the time, I'm surprised you would make such a statement.
What I said is that the amount of disclosure to the site is up to you. If you don't post something there's no way for it to be propagated even by the site owners. It was never present in the first place.
Some information is unavoidable...your ip, an email, and for pay sites whatever is required for payment. But everything else is up to you. If you disclose less, then the value of your site may be lower but then again it may not.
Quote:
You state this as if it's a fact, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Yes, there is a "social networking gap", and it will continue to evolve over the coming decades. No doubt. But to assume people behave the same when they are kids and teens as they do as adults is just silly.
Any single sentence generalization can be misconstrued as fact and deconstructed as a fallacy.
Quote:
Most kids/teens (and even young adults) behave very differently as compared with when the "grow up". Risk taking goes down, responsibility goes up, personalities change greatly. That's life.
While this is true, learned behaviors and tastes do persist. There are real world statistics in the difference between email and IM use/preference by age group.
Quote:
Heheh. I understand the gist, and there's some truth there. But while I agree that having used computers for 25 years should not necessarily be a positive metric, neither should it be a negative one. There are "fuddy-duddies" and there are "enlightened old-timers". All else equal, having more years of life experience is a good thing. And yes, all else is not always equal.
Experience often hinders innovation and sometimes hinders acceptance of new ideas.
There's a quote of Ivan Sutherland that when asked "How could you invent the first interactive graphics program, this first non-procedural programming language, and the first object oriented software system all in one year (1963)" he replied "Well, I didn't know it was hard".
Enlightened old-timers kinda know that their time is past but the world is just as exciting and there are just as many innovations awaiting discovery as it was when they were 20 and invincible. Enlightened old-timers know that it is the 20 year olds most likely to understand/recognize/invent the next great thing than them.
Fuddy-duddies are glad not to pursue social networking software because its fickle and they don't see any value in it. After all they can just send a picture to someone via an email.
That said, I don't believe in the doom and gloom that Apple is getting hidebound because they aren't investing in social networking. You can't be a leader in everything.
This guy is just bitter because they didn't like his ideas.
Apple's success is due in part to their secrecy. When your success is because you have better ideas than everyone else, you have to keep them secret until their release. If you allow your employees to blog all day, secrets are going to get out that are detrimental.
If this guy thought for a second why Apple is able to wow everyone year after year, he wouldn't be complaining. He should go work for an open source company if he wants to divulge everything to the public.
Wow. What a fanboi response. Why is it that someone who can't get traction on things in an organization is "bitter", as if that somehow invalidates their concerns or ideas. So now that he has left Apple he becomes bitter and a chump? Please.
If you paid any attention, you would see that the guy who was responsible for iChat was attempting to lobby for additional features for that tool--for *gasp* the customer! In other words, there was more cool functionality that might be in iChat making it more of a player in the market of instant messaging and collaboration, but the execs didn't "get it" and have no interest in adding more features.
Whereas, at other leading companies like oh say Google, Engineers are encouraged to try new things.
I find it interesting that obviously some Apple Engineers get more lattitude on this than others or perhaps they just go ahead and write it anyway, without permission like the guy behind the changes to iMovie. Remember the story Steve had about that?
Anyway, perhaps this engineer will go work on Adium and just pile cool features into that, or do addons like iChax did.
This story doesn't surprise me at all. Apple doesn't even give customers and users the most basic information, even stuff that wouldn't be remotely secret.
On their user message boards, there is VERY rarely any official response to the company, even to basic questions. Any posts that are considered even remotely speculative about the future of a product are deleted (even stuff like "will issue XYZ be fixed"). It's a bit ridiculous when apple has a perfect opportunity to get feedback from users about what works and what doesn't, and what they'd like to see in the future. Wishlist posts are deleted as fast as anything else.
Apple's feedback/bug report system is a black hole (these: http://www.apple.com/feedback/soundtrackpro.html). There's no indication that things submitted are even read or considered, and users are often left wondering if a bug widely discussed by users is even on Apple's radar. Once updates are released, apple's release notes usually don't go into any specifics about what was fixed so users have to check it themselves and post so that others know.
Other companies do much better, responding on official message boards, and making announcements about major issues to let users know that problems are being worked on. This is especially true in the case of "pro apps" where people are depending on the app to make a living, and a major bug can be catastrophic.
And it's not just customers either. Apple just released a 64 bit OS, but few if any of their apps are 64 bit code. Companies developing plugins for apple's apps need to decide if and when they will update to 64 bit versions, but they have ZERO guidance from apple about when those apps might get updated. I've heard many times from developers about getting kept in the dark and only finding out about new OS and app features at the same time as consumers, then having to scramble to catch up.
I think it hurts apple, and probably costs some customers. Obviously Apple has secret projects that must be kept quiet, but would it really kill them to allow developers to occasionally respond to questions and reassure users that apps are still being worked on?
Wouldn't it be great if your address book was being updated by your contacts themselves?
Absolutely not. I don't want anybody but me messing with information on my machine. Full stop.
auxio understood where I'm coming from, but given his (like mine) 25 year experience with computers we are obviously of the same generation (which is only slightly younger than Jobs's generation, which doesn't do social apps either). I think social apps do well with young people, who seem to lack any sense of privacy whatsoever, growing up in the age of reality TV and all.
ArthurAscii thinks this is a social networking site, but it's not. It's a forum, a discussion group. We don't talk about our personal lives. We are united by a common subject of interest. This is as old as computers and modems. We did it in the BBS era. I mean sure, you could use this as a social app up to a point, by publishing personal info, but that's not what most people do here.
Absolutely not. I don't want anybody but me messing with information on my machine. Full stop.
auxio understood where I'm coming from, but given his (like mine) 25 year experience with computers we are obviously of the same generation (which is only slightly younger than Jobs's generation, which doesn't do social apps either). I think social apps do well with young people, who seem to lack any sense of privacy whatsoever, growing up in the age of reality TV and all.
ArthurAscii thinks this is a social networking site, but it's not. It's a forum, a discussion group. We don't talk about our personal lives. We are united by a common subject of interest. This is as old as computers and modems. We did it in the BBS era. I mean sure, you could use this as a social app up to a point, by publishing personal info, but that's not what most people do here.
Clearly, we need a conversation about social networking, since we don't agree on what it is! I'd be interested in hearing others' definitions, but to me almost any kind of online conversation carried out in public comes under the heading, or ought to. Alternatives might include the use of particular software, tagging schemes, profiles and so forth - these are narrowly technical, in my book, as well as nebulous, particularly when aggregated under the heading of Web 2.0. I'd dispute that people don't talk about their personal lives on this site; and the corollary, that people only talk about their personal lives on Facebook or what have you. People email each other based on conversations here, use real names or learn them, do business, arrange to meet up - and, as you and I are doing right now, socialize, in a narrow kind of way.
Your contention that this site is focussed around a particular topic of interest whereas an SNS is more general is true, but mistakes the platform (in this case vBulletin, as opposed to Facebook) for what people do on it (discuss Apple, in this case, which however plenty of people do on Facebook and which, by the way, we are not now doing, our conversation having shifted). It may be argued that there is a structure of linking and sharing of data that is more explicit on Facebook as opposed to x number of vBulletin sites plus Google - and if that can furnish a difference, I'd be interested on hearing it.
But I suspect the imputed difference comes down to a distinction between a personal and a public life that is quite subtle, almost a matter of style.
Comments
Been using computers for over 25 years now and I have no interest in putting my life on display for the world.
...
So yes, I'm also glad Apple is staying focused on software for professional users and steering clear of the fickle world of social networking.
You know, I've also been using computers for 25 years and your post suddenly makes me think I NEED a MySpace page along with Plaxo and LinkedIn.
Because when you start to "not get" technological changes all you're good for anymore is management. Your innovation days are done.
It is my opinion that tech folks need to understand the past and be able to envision the future based on indicators in the present.
How many computer folks know how far in the future what we have today was prototyped? If you have time check out this video of a lecture by Alan Kay that displays videos from 1962.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/stream.p...ebcastid=17557
The source is here if you want to see the other half:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_d...sid=1906978389
The class is User Interface Design (Alan Kay Video - Part I & 2)
The seeds of tomorrow exist today.
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
And, for whatever it's worth, I don't care for social networking myself. I have no MySpace or Facebook account and I don't share personal information or photos on-line. If I want somebody to see a picture, I send them an e-mail. I couldn't care less that Apple is not pursuing this; I'd rather they didn't, in fact.
Wouldn't it be great if your address book was being updated by your contacts themselves?
Holy cow, I can't tell whether your post is sarcastic or not.
Either way, how absolutely scary and stupid that would be to allow people access to my personal address book -- even if somehow we believe it would be secure enough to protect against messing with other entries (most net security is a joke), what if I don't want people looking at or fricking with MY data?!
Besides, do you want others to be able to poke through private info of your friends? Do THEY want that? Even if you believe such sites are secure (ha), when you put your friends/contacts info in an online database (like Yahoo/plaxo/etc) you have just given someone else's personal info to a 3rd party, usually without their permission. The managing/hosting companies have 100% access to all the data, and in many cases can use your contact data for other purposes. So you just gave your friends' personal info to the company. Think about that before you put someone else's personal information online. Privacy policies? Ugh, don't get me started.
If anyone put my contact info in Plaxo I would beat the shit out of them verbally and cut contacts. Oh wait, I've already done that once....
Sorry, rant-off. Just struck a huge nerve.
Originally Posted by auxio
Been using computers for over 25 years now and I have no interest in putting my life on display for the world.
...
So yes, I'm also glad Apple is staying focused on software for professional users and steering clear of the fickle world of social networking.
You know, I've also been using computers for 25 years and your post suddenly makes me think I NEED a MySpace page along with Plaxo and LinkedIn.
Because when you start to "not get" technological changes all you're good for anymore is management. Your innovation days are done.
Just because someone doesn't want to put their life on permanent display (remember, "The internet never forgets!"), doesn't mean they "don't get" tech changes. I am very involved in this field, and understand it deeply. And partly -because- of that, will never, ever post personal stuff in a public blog, flog, etc.
Remember too, that when you post pictures and information about your kids online, you are probably doing so without their permission. Would you like it if your parents started posting stupid old pictures of you when you were a kid, or a teen? Along with associated drivel commentary? Hmm.
BTW, Jens Alfke is one hell of a developer. They are losing a great asset.
Holy cow, I can't tell whether your post is sarcastic or not.
Either way, how absolutely scary and stupid that would be to allow people access to my personal address book -- even if somehow we believe it would be secure enough to protect against messing with other entries (most net security is a joke), what if I don't want people looking at or fricking with MY data?!
I think you've taken quite a leap. Of course such a hypothetical system would be limited to the person updating their own information, not being able to see or change anyone else's information. I would think that such restrictions would be assumed.
I think you've taken quite a leap. Of course such a hypothetical system would be limited to the person updating their own information, not being able to see or change anyone else's information. I would think that such restrictions would be assumed.
That such restrictions should remain permanent and inviolate should also not be assumed.
You should always assume that anything you let out of your personal control will become public at one time or another.
That such restrictions should remain permanent and inviolate should also not be assumed.
I think you misunderstand here. One person suggested an idea, and another person flew off the handle by interpreting it to mean something much broader when there was no such basis to assume that.
Just because someone doesn't want to put their life on permanent display (remember, "The internet never forgets!"), doesn't mean they "don't get" tech changes. I am very involved in this field, and understand it deeply. And partly -because- of that, will never, ever post personal stuff in a public blog, flog, etc.
Remember too, that when you post pictures and information about your kids online, you are probably doing so without their permission. Would you like it if your parents started posting stupid old pictures of you when you were a kid, or a teen? Along with associated drivel commentary? Hmm.
What you choose to expose is up to you. Personal stuff, professional stuff, hobby stuff are all valid options for disclosure in a blog, flog, etc. The level of exposure is likewise controllable. MySpace/Facebook != life on permanent display unless you choose to make it so.
Understand that how kids interact and network today reflects the general way they will interact and network tomorrow as adults. If you believe in the "game generation gap" as postulated by Beck and Wade then you likely will believe that a "social networking gap" will appear as a significant behavior divide between the iGeneration and the oldest GenY members or youngest GenX cohort members (and not just Baby Boomers).
I guess I mostly was responding to the idiocy of the comment about Apple "staying focused on software for professional users" .
Plus, having used computers for 25 years is not a positive metric for computer experience. In fact it's probably a negative metric. All it says is that you're old.
BTW, Jens Alfke is one hell of a developer. They are losing a great asset.
I agree. But Apple has lost an amazing amount of talent over the years and yet manages to find or foster new ones. After 19 years, he probably needs to move on anyway.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I think you've taken quite a leap. Of course such a hypothetical system would be limited to the person updating their own information, not being able to see or change anyone else's information. I would think that such restrictions would be assumed.
Of course, but most data security these days is a joke. And one of the big things I was trying to point out is that with managed online personal-info datastores members are "tricked" into giving OTHER people's personal information to the keepers of the data, even if it is otherwise secure. Offline, in-person, would you give out your friends' phone numbers to other people they didn't know without getting permission first? Some people do, but that's disgustingly rude.
That such restrictions should remain permanent and inviolate should also not be assumed.
You should always assume that anything you let out of your personal control will become public at one time or another.
Wow, thank you. Much more eloquent and concise than what I had posted earlier. I need you as a ghost writer. ;-)
As one who is a member of and a participant on several social networking sites (with both a Mac and PC) I'm not sure what the big deal is about creating "social networking applications". Facebook, Myspace, and the others already do that themselves. There is no incentive for Apple to build social networking applications. The current social networking applications in use are all web based and created by either the site hosts or third parties. They already work on the Mac. There is no profit in this for Apple.
I am in no way defending Apple's Policies and procedures or Steve Jobs in any way, but as we all know, if we don't like the policies and procedures of the company we work for, we can definitely leave that company and go elsewhere. There are DEFINITELY worse places to work than Apple, I can assure you
Of course, but most data security these days is a joke. And one of the big things I was trying to point out is that with managed online personal-info datastores members are "tricked" into giving OTHER people's personal information to the keepers of the data, even if it is otherwise secure. Offline, in-person, would you give out your friends' phone numbers to other people they didn't know without getting permission first? Some people do, but that's disgustingly rude.
I think that is quite different from my mental image of the system. I can see why you wouldn't want anybody else to peruse all of your address book, that's clearly a bad idea, but mr O's post certainly didn't necessarily suggest anything like that.
My mental image of the system is such that I enter person A into my address book. Person A can change and see their own information in my address book, but no one else's. I do the same with person B. With what I envisioned, neither A nor B know about the other person or whether or not they're really in my address book. Even if person A's account is compromised, all they'll get is person A's information.
The security can be a concern though, if the server (not just a user account) is compromised then that's a problem.
It's easier to distribute updated vcards, but therein lies a problem because most vcards are distributed over the internet as plain text.
What you choose to expose is up to you. Personal stuff, professional stuff, hobby stuff are all valid options for disclosure in a blog, flog, etc. The level of exposure is likewise controllable. MySpace/Facebook != life on permanent display unless you choose to make it so.
This is just not true. If you put information online, then anyone who has access to that data can easily propagate that information. Happens all the time, I'm surprised you would make such a statement.
Understand that how kids interact and network today reflects the general way they will interact and network tomorrow as adults.
You state this as if it's a fact, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Yes, there is a "social networking gap", and it will continue to evolve over the coming decades. No doubt. But to assume people behave the same when they are kids and teens as they do as adults is just silly. Most kids/teens (and even young adults) behave very differently as compared with when the "grow up". Risk taking goes down, responsibility goes up, personalities change greatly. That's life.
Most people don't understand this until they experience it themselves, i.e. after growing up, having their own family, etc.
Plus, having used computers for 25 years is not a positive metric for computer experience. In fact it's probably a negative metric. All it says is that you're old.
Heheh. I understand the gist, and there's some truth there. But while I agree that having used computers for 25 years should not necessarily be a positive metric, neither should it be a negative one. There are "fuddy-duddies" and there are "enlightened old-timers". All else equal, having more years of life experience is a good thing. And yes, all else is not always equal.
I think you misunderstand here. One person suggested an idea, and another person flew off the handle by interpreting it to mean something much broader when there was no such basis to assume that.
Maybe we got off on a tangent here but his concern is real. And the broader implications of ideas and methods need to be considered and addressed. Especially issues like privacy and personal security. Remember the story of the camels nose.
What you choose to expose is up to you. Personal stuff, professional stuff, hobby stuff are all valid options for disclosure in a blog, flog, etc. The level of exposure is likewise controllable. MySpace/Facebook != life on permanent display unless you choose to make it so.
Really, then Wired.com is wrong about this 17GB file of private MySpace data on BitTorrent (http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...yspace_torrent)?
I agree, we do have a generational issue. But one of the responsibilities the older generation has is to make the younger generation slow down and think about what it is they are doing. And while not totally against MySpace, FaceBook and the others I do think the kids are putting way to much information onto these sites. The main problem in my mind is that kids (both living at home and at college) do not have any privacy, have never been granted any privacy and do not understand the need for personal privacy. This comes latter when they move out of their childhood home and start creating individual lives for themselves. It will be interesting to see what happens when the MySpace/FaceBook generation reach thirty and have fully developed senses of privacy.
Ok, for this out of touch old foggy, does the term social networking include applications besides MaySpace and its ilk? And if so what are they and what do they do? And like an earlier poster, I completely freak at the idea of anyone coming in and altering MY data.
--
Remember what goes online stays online. And what is online will become public.
I think that is quite different from my mental image of the system. I can see why you wouldn't want anybody else to peruse all of your address book, that's clearly a bad idea
In all these systems, the hosting company can peruse through all of everyone's data. That's creepy enough!
My mental image of the system is such that I enter person A into my address book. Person A can change and see their own information in my address book, but no one else's. I do the same with person B. With what I envisioned, neither A nor B know about the other person or whether or not they're really in my address book. Even if person A's account is compromised, all they'll get is person A's information.
Nah, if person A's account is compromised that includes their own data and all the other people in their address book. i.e. If your account is compromised then person A and person B and everyone else just had their data spilled.
The security can be a concern though, if the server (not just a user account) is compromised then that's a problem.
Yes, the above issues are bad enough, but this is what really sucks about these systems. It happens all the time, and with far more secure systems than these (banks, etc). And the worst part is that it takes only -one- person to enter your personal data into one of these sites without your permission, and that's that. Sucks.
It's easier to distribute updated vcards, but therein lies a problem because most vcards are distributed over the internet as plain text.
Never said it would be easy. ;-)
Today's society seems to value convenience over privacy (and practically everything else, it seems!). I have no problem if people put their own information online. The problem is that some systems exist primarily to encourage users to put OTHER people's personal info online (plaxo, et al), and that's just unacceptable.
I think that is quite different from my mental image of the system. I can see why you wouldn't want anybody else to peruse all of your address book, that's clearly a bad idea, but mr O's post certainly didn't necessarily suggest anything like that.
And this is why Blahs' response was appropriate. He saw the issue from a different angle. For important issues like security and privacy we need to consider all these angles, including the ones we didn't think of, before jumping off and doing something stupid.
You just pointed out my problem with Address Book sharing. Its all or nothing. You either share everything with everybody, or nothing with nobody. A typical user will have several classes of contacts; Work, Friends, Family, Extended Family and Personal/Private. I would like to be able to share subsets of my contacts instead of the whole batch.
My mental image of the system is such that I enter person A into my address book. Person A can change and see their own information in my address book, but no one else's. I do the same with person B. With what I envisioned, neither A nor B know about the other person or whether or not they're really in my address book. Even if person A's account is compromised, all they'll get is person A's information.
Ah, but then a door gets open into your account and your account gets compromised. The best defense is not to provide the door in the first place.
The security can be a concern though, if the server (not just a user account) is compromised then that's a problem.
Assume this. Always assume that the servers will be compromised at one time or another. Then when they are, you have no problem. Or at least one that you have already anticipated.
It's easier to distribute updated vcards, but therein lies a problem because most vcards are distributed over the internet as plain text.
i still don't understand why encryption has not been made a standard part of email. The tools have been there for nearly twenty years now.
This is just not true. If you put information online, then anyone who has access to that data can easily propagate that information. Happens all the time, I'm surprised you would make such a statement.
What I said is that the amount of disclosure to the site is up to you. If you don't post something there's no way for it to be propagated even by the site owners. It was never present in the first place.
Some information is unavoidable...your ip, an email, and for pay sites whatever is required for payment. But everything else is up to you. If you disclose less, then the value of your site may be lower but then again it may not.
You state this as if it's a fact, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Yes, there is a "social networking gap", and it will continue to evolve over the coming decades. No doubt. But to assume people behave the same when they are kids and teens as they do as adults is just silly.
Any single sentence generalization can be misconstrued as fact and deconstructed as a fallacy.
Most kids/teens (and even young adults) behave very differently as compared with when the "grow up". Risk taking goes down, responsibility goes up, personalities change greatly. That's life.
While this is true, learned behaviors and tastes do persist. There are real world statistics in the difference between email and IM use/preference by age group.
Heheh. I understand the gist, and there's some truth there. But while I agree that having used computers for 25 years should not necessarily be a positive metric, neither should it be a negative one. There are "fuddy-duddies" and there are "enlightened old-timers". All else equal, having more years of life experience is a good thing. And yes, all else is not always equal.
Experience often hinders innovation and sometimes hinders acceptance of new ideas.
There's a quote of Ivan Sutherland that when asked "How could you invent the first interactive graphics program, this first non-procedural programming language, and the first object oriented software system all in one year (1963)" he replied "Well, I didn't know it was hard".
Enlightened old-timers kinda know that their time is past but the world is just as exciting and there are just as many innovations awaiting discovery as it was when they were 20 and invincible. Enlightened old-timers know that it is the 20 year olds most likely to understand/recognize/invent the next great thing than them.
Fuddy-duddies are glad not to pursue social networking software because its fickle and they don't see any value in it. After all they can just send a picture to someone via an email.
That said, I don't believe in the doom and gloom that Apple is getting hidebound because they aren't investing in social networking. You can't be a leader in everything.
This guy is just bitter because they didn't like his ideas.
Apple's success is due in part to their secrecy. When your success is because you have better ideas than everyone else, you have to keep them secret until their release. If you allow your employees to blog all day, secrets are going to get out that are detrimental.
If this guy thought for a second why Apple is able to wow everyone year after year, he wouldn't be complaining. He should go work for an open source company if he wants to divulge everything to the public.
Wow. What a fanboi response. Why is it that someone who can't get traction on things in an organization is "bitter", as if that somehow invalidates their concerns or ideas. So now that he has left Apple he becomes bitter and a chump? Please.
If you paid any attention, you would see that the guy who was responsible for iChat was attempting to lobby for additional features for that tool--for *gasp* the customer! In other words, there was more cool functionality that might be in iChat making it more of a player in the market of instant messaging and collaboration, but the execs didn't "get it" and have no interest in adding more features.
Whereas, at other leading companies like oh say Google, Engineers are encouraged to try new things.
I find it interesting that obviously some Apple Engineers get more lattitude on this than others or perhaps they just go ahead and write it anyway, without permission like the guy behind the changes to iMovie. Remember the story Steve had about that?
Anyway, perhaps this engineer will go work on Adium and just pile cool features into that, or do addons like iChax did.
On their user message boards, there is VERY rarely any official response to the company, even to basic questions. Any posts that are considered even remotely speculative about the future of a product are deleted (even stuff like "will issue XYZ be fixed"). It's a bit ridiculous when apple has a perfect opportunity to get feedback from users about what works and what doesn't, and what they'd like to see in the future. Wishlist posts are deleted as fast as anything else.
Apple's feedback/bug report system is a black hole (these: http://www.apple.com/feedback/soundtrackpro.html). There's no indication that things submitted are even read or considered, and users are often left wondering if a bug widely discussed by users is even on Apple's radar. Once updates are released, apple's release notes usually don't go into any specifics about what was fixed so users have to check it themselves and post so that others know.
Other companies do much better, responding on official message boards, and making announcements about major issues to let users know that problems are being worked on. This is especially true in the case of "pro apps" where people are depending on the app to make a living, and a major bug can be catastrophic.
And it's not just customers either. Apple just released a 64 bit OS, but few if any of their apps are 64 bit code. Companies developing plugins for apple's apps need to decide if and when they will update to 64 bit versions, but they have ZERO guidance from apple about when those apps might get updated. I've heard many times from developers about getting kept in the dark and only finding out about new OS and app features at the same time as consumers, then having to scramble to catch up.
I think it hurts apple, and probably costs some customers. Obviously Apple has secret projects that must be kept quiet, but would it really kill them to allow developers to occasionally respond to questions and reassure users that apps are still being worked on?
Wouldn't it be great if your address book was being updated by your contacts themselves?
Absolutely not. I don't want anybody but me messing with information on my machine. Full stop.
auxio understood where I'm coming from, but given his (like mine) 25 year experience with computers we are obviously of the same generation (which is only slightly younger than Jobs's generation, which doesn't do social apps either). I think social apps do well with young people, who seem to lack any sense of privacy whatsoever, growing up in the age of reality TV and all.
ArthurAscii thinks this is a social networking site, but it's not. It's a forum, a discussion group. We don't talk about our personal lives. We are united by a common subject of interest. This is as old as computers and modems. We did it in the BBS era. I mean sure, you could use this as a social app up to a point, by publishing personal info, but that's not what most people do here.
Absolutely not. I don't want anybody but me messing with information on my machine. Full stop.
auxio understood where I'm coming from, but given his (like mine) 25 year experience with computers we are obviously of the same generation (which is only slightly younger than Jobs's generation, which doesn't do social apps either). I think social apps do well with young people, who seem to lack any sense of privacy whatsoever, growing up in the age of reality TV and all.
ArthurAscii thinks this is a social networking site, but it's not. It's a forum, a discussion group. We don't talk about our personal lives. We are united by a common subject of interest. This is as old as computers and modems. We did it in the BBS era. I mean sure, you could use this as a social app up to a point, by publishing personal info, but that's not what most people do here.
Clearly, we need a conversation about social networking, since we don't agree on what it is! I'd be interested in hearing others' definitions, but to me almost any kind of online conversation carried out in public comes under the heading, or ought to. Alternatives might include the use of particular software, tagging schemes, profiles and so forth - these are narrowly technical, in my book, as well as nebulous, particularly when aggregated under the heading of Web 2.0. I'd dispute that people don't talk about their personal lives on this site; and the corollary, that people only talk about their personal lives on Facebook or what have you. People email each other based on conversations here, use real names or learn them, do business, arrange to meet up - and, as you and I are doing right now, socialize, in a narrow kind of way.
Your contention that this site is focussed around a particular topic of interest whereas an SNS is more general is true, but mistakes the platform (in this case vBulletin, as opposed to Facebook) for what people do on it (discuss Apple, in this case, which however plenty of people do on Facebook and which, by the way, we are not now doing, our conversation having shifted). It may be argued that there is a structure of linking and sharing of data that is more explicit on Facebook as opposed to x number of vBulletin sites plus Google - and if that can furnish a difference, I'd be interested on hearing it.
But I suspect the imputed difference comes down to a distinction between a personal and a public life that is quite subtle, almost a matter of style.