Neil Mix

Prior to this past week, I’ve had several theories about the fabled Apple Tablet computer (in order from least cynical to most cynical):

• A brilliant new product with a revolutionary keyboard input mechanism
• An interesting product idea waiting patiently to become technologically feasible
• A really cool-sounding bad product idea whose keyboard input sucks
• A long-since failed product idea that just won’t die
• A series of individual, disorganized hoaxes with a common theme
• An active disinformation campaign designed by Apple to foil competitors and/or root out leaks

After the past week, just in case the rumors turn out to be yet another mirage, I’m adding one more to the end of the list:

• A conspiracy by tech blogs to drive traffic and increase ad revenues

Andrew Woolridge proposes an App Store for the web. Honestly, ever since Apple opened the iPhone App Store I’ve wondered why every platform didn’t already have its own version of the same. Trying to find software is generally a time-sucking, awful activity akin to mixing dough with a spatula. A web-based App Store would be awesome. The catch: how do you prevent it from ending up like download.com?

One thing that may not have been clear from my last post about Joe Hewitt leaving iPhone development is that I don’t disapprove of his actions. Quite the opposite, really, I applaud him for showing the world his beliefs through his actions rather than his words. He describes his concerns as philosophical disagreement, which I think is exactly right. Rather than ridiculing the review process while continuing to reap the rewards of iPhone and its App Store, he’s chosen to move onto something more appropriate for him. If more developers acted as Joe has, perhaps Apple would get around to fixing the flaws in its process. (And there are plenty, lest there be any doubt.)

I’ve been published! A while back I wrote a chapter for the Apress book iPhone Cool Projects, and it’s “on the shelves” NOW. The chapter is about, of course, streaming audio on the iPhone. It’s a pretty neat book that consists of a chapter each for seven notable iPhone apps. The authors are a wicked smart crew, I’m not really sure how I got included. Check out the book!

The authoring process was interesting and fun, a great learning process, and more work than I expected. Every day I gain more respect for people who do a lot of writing, blogging or booking. Where do they find the time? And how the heck do they generate well-structured prose so quickly? It ain’t easy, believe me.

Anyway, if you’ve bought the book already, thanks! And if you buy it in the future, thanks! Hope it’s a good read for you.

Last year’s WWDC was a pretty quiet but busy affair for me — I was learning as much as possible while also heads-down trying to get Pandora for iPhone ready in time for the App Store launch. This year I’m hoping to be a bit more sane, breathing between sessions and socializing here and there. Except for when I’m not busy going to and from Pandora HQ. And visiting coworkers and friends after work. Oh hell, this year’s WWDC is going to be *way* busier for me than last year.

Oh well. If you’re also in town for the event and want to hook up, drop me a line.

One of the inventors on SSL was interviewed on CNET recently and threw out this gem of a quote:

We had this fight early on in the Internet days: What do we tell the user to do when there is an expired certificate? Security professionals always struggle with the general public because usability always wins. When you get an expired certificate, the site owner or organization would always prefer to allow the user to do things rather than disallow. This is just an unfortunate fact.

Ok, look, this problem has nothing to do with user interface and what you call “usability.” Security and usability are not mutually opposed as long as the security has a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio.

Consider this: what percentage of web sites with bad certs are in fact malicious? Now, what percentage of sites with good certs turn out to be malicious? As it turns out, the trustworthiness of a site has almost nothing to do with the validity of it’s SSL cert! That’s your usability problem. I want software that tells me something is a security risk, not that it could be a security risk.

I was interviewed by the Mobile Orchard folks recently, discussing a range of interesting stuff about developing the Pandora iPhone app. There’s a few good tidbits about iPhone dev and a some other tidbits about UI design/development. Take a listen if you’d like to hear my cheery voice.

My good friend Dan Grigsby has a new blog: Mobile Orchard. It’s all about iPhone development. He’s started up a podcast series kicking things off with Hampton Catlin, creator of the iPedia app. Check it out, it’s good stuff. Dan has a keen eye for what developers like and need. I’m looking forward to seeing what Mobile Orchard holds in store.

I’m going to be in Boston starting tomorrow for The Ajax Experience. (I’m speaking on Wednesday…first time…yikes!) If you happen to be there and want to meet up, drop me a line.

If you ever take the time to read through grandmaster chess games, you’ll find that once a player obtains a substantial material advantage (takes a rook, bishop, or knight, for example) the other player resigns immediately. While most inexperienced players in this position choose to fight it out, grandmasters know that once there’s a disparity in power, the game is over. Why is this?

To find out, look forward to the endgame. At the start of a game, the loss of a bishop doesn’t represent an overwhelming power differential between players. In the endgame, a bishop advantage is overwhelming.

Let’s give each piece a value representing the destructive power it wields on the board: pawn: 1, knight: 3, bishop: 4, rook: 6, queen: 10, king: 2. Starting a game by removing one player’s bishop yields difference of 4 in power, with a power ratio of 42/46, a difference of about 9.5%. Now let’s say we continue the game exchanging pieces equally between players, down to a king and a pawn for each side, plus the bishop advantage one player started with. The difference in power is still 4, but the ratio is now 3/7, or 230%.

So as the number of pieces on the board decreases, the disparity in power between players grows. Thus if you obtain a power advantage early in a game, your best strategy for the rest of the game is not to play to win, but to tie. In other words, make sure that every piece you lose is matched by an equal loss by your opponent. Taking this to its logical conclusion, you can seek out equal exchanges. Put your pieces on suicide missions, trading pawn for pawn, rook for rook, etc. Such exchanges are pointless tactically, but strategically valuable. Each exchange brings you closer to the endgame where your power differential is overwhelming.

When you employ this “equal exchange” strategy, your opponent’s job is immensely more difficult. Not only must your opponent find a way to win a piece from you (just to break even) while defending against attacks enhanced by your power advantage, but your opponent must also dodge any attempts at self-sacrificing equal exchanges. It’s too much to defend against.

The equal exchange strategy isn’t sexy or exciting. It’s a grind-it-out, lengthy process (especially when your opponent is unaware of what you’re doing). But it works every time, and it’s easy to do.

So why is this post titled Chess and Politics? Because you can draw a direct analogy to the current Democratic presidential primary between Clinton and Obama. The pundits were looking to see if Obama would strike a knockout blow last Tuesday with the Texas and Ohio primaries. He did, but the pundits don’t realize it yet. It’ll take a few weeks to sink in. Here’s why:

1. Texas and Ohio were the only states remaining big enough to provide a significant shift in the difference between delegate counts.
2. The total shift resulting from those primaries was less than 10 delegates.
3. The Democratic party’s super delegates won’t go against the will of the voters. Not this year, not this election.

All this sets up the equal exchange strategy for Obama. All he needs to do is make sure pieces are removed from the board nearly equally for each player the remaining primaries. Each time this happens, Obama’s power relative to Clinton grows.

Obama’s no longer playing to win, he’s playing to tie. And that is much easier to do. Of course anything can happen in politics (which is what the Clinton camp is depending on at this point). But I think it’s fair to say that if Obama isn’t able to get the nomination with his current advantage, then he probably wouldn’t make a good presidential candidate.