I Owe You An Apology

I get a lot of practice with apologies.

I tell my wife I’m sorry all the time. I apologize to my kids. I probably owe several people in my tiny little sphere of influence an apology; if you’re one of them, leave a comment on this post.

Daniel Pink wants us to think about how we apologize. I agree with him 100 percent.

Pink writes in the Telegraph that the “professional” apology (“We regret any inconvenience this may have caused,”) or the “non-apology” (See Steve Jobs) is not only terrible on the corporate level, but is getting even worse as we slip into such apologies – even if Scott Adams Calls them the “High Road Maneuver” – into our everyday speech. (I have to agree with several of Adams' commenters, who say there's a fine line between taking the high road and being insolent; Jobs and many others cross that line and still want to claim the high road. They can't have their cake and eat it, too).

I won’t stand for it. I’m a sorry little sack of protoplasm and will continue to be a sorry little sack of protoplasm every time I screw up. I’m likely to continue screwing up not because I’m not learning lessons from past screw-ups, but because I’m prone to making mistakes. I'm not one who believes apologizing shows weakness.

In that, I’m in agreement with 37 Signals’ Jason Fried, whom pink quotes:

“Any inconvenience” is emotionally anaemic and lacks the specificity to make it meaningful. “We apologise” isn’t much better. It’s distancing almost to the point of dismissiveness. “When you say, ‘I’m sorry,’ you’re owning,” Fried explains. “When you say ‘I apologise,’ you’re renting.”

Professionalese is a renter’s language. It doesn’t expect to be around for very long and has no stake in the long-term prospects of the neighbourhood. It says, “mistakes were made” rather than “we messed up” and claims to “take responsibility” instead of acknowledging “it’s my fault.”

I catch myself doing it – saying “I apologize” to my wife rather than “I’m sorry.” There are lights years of difference between the two. The latter, to me, is more sincere, less sterile. More in line with this:

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

It’s all in the humility, something of which we’re in desperate need these days. A non-apology, or one couched in language meant to insulate the one who made the mistake from the ones that mistake impacts do not invite forgiveness or empathy.

As Pink writes:

The behavioural economist Dan Ariely has conducted research showing that when people are treated rudely, they’re more likely to behave vengefully – for instance, by not saying anything when they’re given too much change in a transaction. But when rudeness is followed by a clear and simple “I’m sorry”, the annoyance dissipates and people tend to behave as honourably as they do in ordinary circumstances.

That’s the kind of world I want to live in; where the golden rule means not “He who has the gold makes the rules,” but the meaning the rule was intended to have: “Treat others as you’d like to be treated.” If someone compels you to walk a mile, walk with him twain. That kind of thing. It doesn’t matter if there are people out there making the same mistakes as we are – their behavior does not control our own.

. . . With all that Knowledge You Have . . .

See? The 1970s Steve Jobs DOES look like Uncle Rico. Hair. Mustache. Watch. Smirk. And they both look like they've got all the answers. Really legit.

The iPad is no Savior

Steve Jobs with an Uncle Rico vibe

So now we have the iPad.

First of all, great name. Much better than the iTablet a lot of folks were anticipating. From iPod to iPad with one vowel change. Classy.

Will I own one? Depends on the price. Sure, it appears to be handier for surfing the Web and reading than your standard laptop. I have used a laptop for reading and watching movies while on the bus home from work, and it's cumbersome. First I had trouble with my wrists banging on the touch pad for the mouse. Then I got a micro-mouse and had to juggle it while trying to work or entertain myself. So to have a touchscreen, now that would be nice. Even nicer, in my opinion, if it had cutting board-style handles, so I could hold it like a cutting board or book while I watch. I know I've come too close a few times to dropping my Compaq laptop, and I can't imagine dropping an iPad would be a good experience, given the fact that its front surface appears to be about 99 percent glass.

That's another issue -- fragility. These things have got to be rugged, in my opinion, or it'll end in tears. I felt sick to the stomach for weeks after my first iPod Touch went through the clothes washer and died, and that was only a $300 investment. Engadget.com is telling us that a 16 GB iPad will cost $499 -- as inexpensive as a laptop if you hold a blind eye to memory comparisons. A 64 GB iPad, $699, and that's if you go for the wifi-only model. Want connectivity all the time? That'll cost you extra, and I'll be curious to see if it's over the much-hated AT&T 3G network. A 64 GB with 3G capability will run $829. It's a spendy little object.

And a 10-hour battery life? I'm skeptical.

And do I want a bulky object like this? Sure, it's less bulky than an ordinary laptop. But compared to the iPod Touch, which I love, it's huge. And huge definitely isn't better. I like the privacy of my little 3.5 inch screen. I can put it in a pocket if I want to. Of couse, that's how the first one ended up going through the clothes washer.

And the other issue -- Apple is notorious for putting a product on the market and thn, a year later, introducing a better model that's less expensive. I'm hesitant to be an early adopter, especially with Apple.

But would I, could I use one? Probably. I didn't need an iPod Touch until I had one and sent it through the washer. So having an iPad, once I got over the price, fragility and other factors, might be a good thing. But there's a limit on how much I'm willing to pay to get over that "I have to have it" hump.

And I have to laugh a bit. CNN reports that traditional publishers -- magazines and newspapers, to be exact -- are salivating that the advent of an Apple iPad could help them revive their fortunes with subscriptions and such. Well, that remains to be seen. True, the iPad offers full color. But that's hardly enough, in my opinion, to get these publishers a huge rush of online subscriptions. I'm nto sure a product, at this point, is going to change how people consume their news. And since this thing has a web browser, why pay for waht's already out there, on the Internet, for free? The iPad isn't going to be a publishing savior.

I'm fascinated with our fixation on objects and technology as saviors of this or that. The advent of the home computer and the Internet -- objects, arguably -- haven't really helped newspapers, music distributors, et cetera. They've hurt. What they need to do is to figure out how to get back into the public psyche. Just because the iPad appears isn't going to mean that we're suddenly willing to subscribe to online newspapers or online magazines. We've probved that supposition wrong time and again with our access to computers and smart phones, time and again, with the industry aiding and abetting us by offering their stuff for free. The advent of the printing press didn't suddenly mean that everyone was literate, or cared to be literate. That change took hundreds of years of further advancement, and even today, with our access to education and information, literacy isn't a given. The printing press, ad its beginning, got a few people excited. It wasn't until more people could read -- and the development of the quattro -- that printing really took off. To assume a hunk of technology like the iPad is going to explode quickly and permeate our collective psyche as much as printed books or the Internet have is foolishness.

Update: The folks over at Engadget got their gadgety hands on an iPad and took it for a drive. Ther principal criticism: no multitasking. Bummer. So why buy one when a less expensive laptop will do what you want? This no-multitasking fetish that Apple has for its products (neitehr the iPhone nor the iPod Touch allow for multitasking) is an options deficit for a crowd that likes its options.

Another Update: Time Magazine has this nonsensical reportage -- if you can even call it that -- from Peter Ha re: the iPad. iThink he lost me from the get go. If this is twitter reporting, or live event reporting, then can we go back to the old print media? I didn't learn a thing from this one.

Oh, Look at All the Decent People

I'm glad I'm not the only one having a problem with this.

Fraser Speirs, a computer teacher, school IT officer and software developer is concerned that Apple's App Store, while allowing parents to block the downloading of mature-rated apps, does nothing to screen such apps from the store itself -- leaving his students exposed -- pardon the pun -- to the apps' icons, descriptions and other such nonsense that he'd rather not his students see.

I wrote about my similar concerns about the app store and these undesirable apps earlier this year. I think Speirs and I see eye to eye -- neither one of us are asking that the apps be banned. I think we're both on the same line in saying that the iPod Touch's ability to block downloading such apps also include filtering them out of the store, or at least preventing their icons and descriptions from being shown on devices where the controls are in place.

Speirs brings up another good point: The only way you can block such apps completely is to block the app store completely, which reduces teh functionality and desirability of the Apple devices in the first place.

I'd like to see Apple reprogram the parental blocking feature to screen out the apps that are blocked. If we don't want them downloaded onto our devices, it should go without saying that we don't want them displayed when we browse the app store. Surely Apple's developers are intelligent enough to figure this out. This is a solution that satisfies both worlds: Those who want or don't mind the apps don't have to lift a finger. Those who don't have the option of blocking the browsing as well as the downloading.

A Modest Proposal

Mr. Jobs,

Sitting on my desk right now is a brand-new 32 GB iPod Touch, happily charging away. I’ve used it for the last few weeks to watch movies while I while away the 1 ½ hour commute I have home from work each night. I use it for e-mail, for blogging, for Twitter and Facebook and, I have to confess, I’m addicted to a Sponge Bob Square Pants game I found for free in the app store.

I have to confess, however, I’m having a recurring difficulty with your product that is presenting me with a problem:

I’m embarrassed to show the app store to my wife.

She, too, has a 32 GB iPod Touch that, by all indications, she seems to enjoy well. She’s downloaded a few apps, but has not spent much time perusing the app store’s offerings. In my eye, that’s a good thing – but bad for Apple – because of some of the apps she might encounter.

I’m speaking here of adult-oriented content in the app store. That there are such applications as iBoobs and the like, I suppose there’s little I can do about, given that we live in an age where such displays are acceptable. I know through research on the Web that pornography and adult-oriented apps have been and likely will continue to be a serious issue for Apple and any other company that offers similar devices and services.

I’d rather not have such apps show up when I’m searching randomly through the app store. I know the iPod Touch has parental controls that can restrict the use of explicit apps, but as explicitness is in the eye of the beholder, the control is weak at best. Additionally, I don’t have to download an app to be exposed to something I’d rather not see, nor have my wife see when she strolls through the store.

I have strong, personal reasons for wanting to avoid any kind of pornographic images entering my life. My younger brother destroyed his marriage through a pornography addiction. Subsequent emotional turmoil nearly caused him to take his life. He’s gone through hell, Mr. Jobs, because of poor choices he made, but also because our permissive society shrugs at the availability of pornography in all its forms, whether it be hard pornography that the app store, rightly, will not supply, or soft porn, which is multiplying in the app store at a slow but steady rate.

I won’t propose a ban on such apps. I would advise, however, that Apple explore strengthening parental controls in the iPod Touch/iPhone software to perform the following:

• Prevent explicit apps from appearing in the app store. Here, explicitness would be based first on content, second on the icon image the app displays, lastly on the app title
• The software would allow the user to turn this feature on or off, thus offering the option to those who do not wish to be exposed to explicit or adult content in any way the option of opting out.

Popping the “you must be 17 years or older” question and requiring a code to download such apps now are steps in the right direction, but I’d still rather not see even the introductory image to the adult-oriented apps currently available. I’d rather my boys not see them. I’d rather my daughter and my wife not see them. It is easier to avoid stepping on a mine if one does not enter the minefield to begin with. The app store, in its current configuration, even with parental controls, invites us into the minefield to pick the good fruit off the apple tree – no pun intended.

No iPod Touch Upgrade for You

This is definitely something I'd been hoping to hear: According to the folks at PC Magazine, owners of the 2nd generation iPod Touch (like me) needn't bother upgrading to the 3.0 OS.

I admit that I'm thrilled with my iPod Touch. It's a great piece of equipment, works wonderfully as a personal digital assistant (of course, I may be jaded there; I'm using it to replace a truly ancient Palm IIIc) and, at best, mediocre as a music player. But I like the wi-fi and the unit's overall portability and performance. So I was a bit angry when I found out that the OS update, free to iPhone users, would cost iPod users $9.99; that's a bit of Apple logic I have yet to fathom.

True, I'll be missing out on the ability to cut and paste. Cutting and pasting is an absolute necessity on any platform, which is why it's mystifying that the ability wasn't included in the original OS. But, as with any shortcut, there are workarounds that I find work tolerably well, so I can't ustify the expense to update the OS. I know there are other upgrades and refinements, but until Apple comes out with one that's actually going to get me excited, I don't feel the need to shell out just because the folks at Apple tell me it's time to upgrade. Besides, they may give in to pressure and offer the subsequent OS update for free, and those who pay for 3.0 will lookk just as foolish as those six or seven idiots who bought the $999 "I Am Rich" app from the app store.

I know all of this makes me sound incredibly cheap. I yam what I yam.