Cogito ergo sum

Ever since Moore shook the world with Fahrenheit 9/11, mainstream documentary films have discovered a fool proof formula – pit the protagonists against a mighty yet despicable Goliath, then wrap the central motif around a conspiracy theory or a promise of some shocking truth unveiling. Not only does this structure able to bring the mundane slightly more bearable, it helps to inject a sense of familiarity in the generally soap soaked audience, carefully keeping their interest levels from dwelling throughout the two hours.

Documentary films have therefore evolved from the hardcore BBC style where authenticity and university professors take center stage to the makeshift blockbuster thrillers they have become. While effective in grabbing headlines and generating controversy, one sometimes can’t help but think whether the tradeoffs are worthwhile. Tension and drama are no doubt effective emotion provoking vehicles, but when the dosage gets too frequent, fatigue and detachment can kick in just as quickly. As easy as that is to grasp, film distributors have never been so keen on pushing the noise stirring documentary race to more ridiculous heights.

The argument is not against producing good quality documentary films that are both thought-provoking and dare I say – entertaining. Few would think that Ric O’Barry’s compassion towards dolphins was an excuse for putting night vision scenes in The Cove. When executed appropriately, the tension helps to put the viewer in the epicenter of the depicted event and make him as involved in the subject matter as the film makers themselves.

However, the abundance of subpar documentary films relegating to shock and gore as cheap marketing tricks have inflicted enough damage on the genre already, making viewers and critics much more skeptical and “rational” than before. On the other hand, right wing critics with a self-proclaimed sense of responsibility to balance the opinions of the world would pour out lengthy counter-arguments with the sole purpose of muddling the original message of the documentary film makers and showcasing their own moral objectivity. Healthy, serious debate is much needed as it teaches us not to accept everything at face value, but most of the ones I came across were merely pseudo arguments with a rational disguise. At the end of the day, this deranged phenomenon causes a set back as confused and less-knowledgeable viewers at large become less sure of what to believe in anymore.

Not all film makers are able to recruit ILM expertise for camera hiding advices and unmanned aircrafts constructions. From The Cove.

So that’s that – documentary film makers should stop adhering to the Moore formula as their impacts are being increasingly watered-down and no meagre budget boosts would help.

While putting together a prototype that pulls a feed of interesting pics from flickr and have them displayed as a carousel on a UIScrollView, I was baffled by the unusual length of time it took for the scrollview to render, even in the simulator. The delay, especially when combined with the use of a UINavigationController, was downright unacceptable.

Check out this vid to get a taste:

It took only one look from a veteran objective-c developer colleague to diagnose the problem – UINavigationController was waiting for a single thread to finish rendering all 60 images before sliding in the ScrollView. “NSInvocationOperation is your answer“, he said.

And indeed it was, the perceived performance sky rocketed ten folds after the process of initializing UIImages was wrapped in an NSOperation. Here’s the difference:

And the code change was as follows:

Basically, all that was required was to move the necessary rendering logic to a separate method, create instances of NSOperations with selectors set to the method, and add those NSOperations into the NSOperationQueue. The Queue would schedule the firing of these operations and there wouldn’t be any hint of sluggishness at the UI. Thread programming 101. Duh.

Extended Reading:

• http://developer.apple.com/cocoa/managingconcurrency.html

WTEFF?

So I was recently asked of my opinion on EFF’s “All Your Apps Are Belong To Apple” posting which has sparked some discussions for a day or two.

My reactions? Hardly surprised, really. In fact, although the arguments presented appear reasonable, the article has a serious air of deja-vu to it that provokes more doldrum rather than rage upon Apple followers.  Every few months, the old statement of “Apple treating its customers unfairly” would get recycled time and again. A few such litigation came to mind immediately:

• “Apple should open up the iPod for sync-ing with other music formats.”
• “Apple should allow songs purchased from iTunes store to be playable on other mp3 players.”
• “Apple should allow Mac OS X to be installed on regular PCs.”
• “Apple should allow consumers to jailbreak the iPhone because they paid for the device and could do anything to it as they pleased.”
• “Apple should allow people to replace the batteries on their Macbooks/iPhones.”

Funny thing is, these never amount to anything substantial (like a court order for Apple to change its policies). Pundits would complain as much as they could, but every argument raised against the company would almost certainly be silenced by a larger group of supporters in the end. Some dismiss this as mere fanboyism, fused by leagues of blindly loyal geeks prepared to accept any offerings or services that came out of 1st Infinite Loop without ever questioning the fairness and sanity of it all.

When you think about it, this explanation doesn’t really hold. With more than 220 million iPods, 57m iPhones, 12m Macs (2009) sold, the installation base is huge and reaches much further than tech-heads and nerds. Is the majority of people in this large user base simply oblivious to the various restrictions imposed by Cupertino then? Why are people willing to pay a premium in exchange of Apple services or products that are apparently ridded with limitations? Flashy marketing and peer pressure alone doing the magic? Obviously not.

At the end of the day, it’s really down to the outstanding user experience offered by Apple products and services in general. Ever since 1977, when Steve Jobs decided he would hand-polish the plastic cases of Apple ][ machines with sand paper to "make the corners smoother to the touch", the company has been embarking on a never-ending mission of striving to produce "unparalleled user experiences" in everything they do or make. Even when that meant going against the entire computer industry and alienating their loyal user base by imposing strict EULAs or removing features that were popular amongst users.

Cases in point - getting rid of floppy drives in iMacs and 1394 ports on iPods/Macs, killing the iPod mini, purging more than 5000 mild-sex oriented apps from AppStore overnight, suing third-party accessories makers, enforcing non-removable batteries on Macbooks and iPhones, forgoing physical keyboards on iPhones…in other words, imposing a water-tight system and employing draconian measures that fiercely go against anyone or anything daring to stand in its path of evolution.

Openness comes with a price.

Each of these steps created uproars and distress upon introduction, but when the dust has settled, favorable opinions would come sifting through. The controversial change brought about by Apple would become a de-facto standard, and pretty soon, competitors who ridiculed the change initially would begin to jump on the bandwagon and roll out inferior copycat products/services to cash in.

So…back to the point. Does this 30 year old track record render the points EFF highlighted in the iPhone Development Program License Agreement justifiable? That remains to be seen, but knowing that control-freak motif behind the company might make those restrictions more reasonable:

• App Store Only: this is the only way Apple can make sure that apps available for the iPhone are reviewed and up to a certain standard, and could be revoked anytime if need be.
• Ban on Reverse Engineering: duh. This is common sense right? Apple develops and owns the iPhone OS and its core apps, and need to protect its investment one way or another.
• No Tinkering with Any Apple Products: same as the App-Store-only sentiment.
• Kill Your App Any Time: this is the only way to ensure crap apps like I’m Rich and porn/malicious apps can be removed at anytime.

Consumers associate everything they see on the iPhone with the Apple brand, so it is of no surprise that the company does everything to protect its decades-old reputation.

Having said that, there always follow the question of whether Apple Inc is “right”, because many believe that the companies in the industry should play a part in “fostering innovation” by “promoting openness and interoperability”. After all, M$ got her share of negative opinions by being a monopolistic goliath that stifle innovation in return for cash. Shouldn’t Apple Inc be subject to the same level of scrutiny?

No matter how rosy you paint a picture, it's no use if we'll still stuck on the other side of the wall.

In my opinion, that can’t be answered by anyone until the legacy of Apple Inc, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and all other “monopolistic” companies are history and the market has entered a new phase. Consider J2ME (arguably the predecessor of Android) – a standard that was backed by all major software/hardware companies, was totally open but yet was also totally chaotic and totally failed to be grasped by consumers at all. Yes, the openness of J2ME was great for the tech crowd and manufacturers. But the side effect was fragmentation and incoherence. At the end of the day,  openness became the very thing that killed the market it wanted to create in the first place, and when the market is gone, so are your promises for innovation. All efforts became futile.

I think the day we should start worrying is the day when it comes to a point Apple Inc became the only choice available, much like how M$ Office and IE stipulated the markets back then. Until then, as a consumer and developer, I’d still be thrilled by what the iPhone platform has to offer.

p.s. Come to think of it, I should have answered this question simply with “Hey, the success of the AppStore meant that I could now throw Hadokens against Blanka on the bus!” Now that’s an argument.

Extended Reading:

• http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/03/apples_design_p.html – Apple’s design process
• http://www.businessinsider.com/the-case-against-apple-2009-8
• http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/27/apple-yanks-the-cord-on-gv-mobile-is-it-trying-to-kill-google-voice-on-the-iphone/
• http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone?currentPage=all – “The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry”
• http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939600/steve_jobs_the_rolling_stone_interview
• http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2010/03/15/android-market-breaks-250-million-downloads-989-free-apps/

Re-done properly with self-made code samples! Strictly for newbies.

Developing native iPhone apps can be fun, as SDK 3.0 offers tons of APIs and options that makes leveraging of features like location detection, animation and embedded maps in your apps effortless.

Then again, developing native iPhone apps can be a major pain, as the restrictions imposed by the SDK can be so strict that you need to go to lengths to create something simple.

This sharing aims to quickly cover the basics (iphone OS, objective-c, UIKit elements, ViewControllers). You’ll also be able to see what it takes to add features like Animation, Network Connectivity, JSON parsing and iPhone specific features such as Shake/Orientation Change/Gestures Detection to an app.

For what it’s worth, another team sharing on the wonders of cascading style sheets.