While it is indeed more convenient to use my iPhone as a GPS than a dedicated GPS unit, I have had a few incidents that made me realize that Apple has no clue how to do maps and driving directions. Here is a couple of illustrations.
It used to be that enterprises wishing to reach their employees 24/7 invested in smartphones specifically designed for enterprise IT. In case anyone forgot those were typically Blackberry or Windows Mobile, neither of which was a pleasant device for a consumer to use.
Then everyone got themselves iPhones and people started carrying a personal iPhone and a work Blackberry. Corporate IT departments realized they could save thousands per year by coming up with ways to get people to use their personal smartphones for work. As an added bonus it became difficult for employees to leave their personal phones at home.
Meanwhile RIM and Microsoft continued to produce devices that people would never buy for their personal use. So the pressure built up within the IT departments to not only make cross platform enterprise apps, but also invest in native iPhone and Android apps.
I learned computer programming on a Cold War era Soviet programmable calculator called Elektronika MK-61. It was a very simple device that used a four element calculation stack, a handful of registers, and programming it was very much like writing assembler code. It had a number of undocumented features that made simple games possible. It's cousin MK-52 was used as an on board computer on a Soyuz spacecraft.
The point, however, is that it was a ridiculously simple device. There was no user interface to write home about. There were no objects, no persistence, no class hierarchies. To teach kids how to program was a matter of discussing sequences of mathematical calculations, writing them out to use postfix notation instead of infix, figuring out a way to only use a stack of four numbers deep, and then writing a program. If the kid is ready to solve a system of linear polynomial equations, she is ready to program a calculator to do the same.
My first computer was a Sinclair ZX Spectrum. It had a built in BASIC interpreter that also acted as a rudimentary operating system. To load a game you had to know at least one or two BASIC commands. Writing a simple platform game was remarkably easy to do.
This was in the 1980s Soviet Union. Fast forward to now. Before a student can even write a program they have to go through the process of learning how to use computers which over the years have become remarkably complex machines. Sure we have nice user interfaces but they are far from simple. They require a rudimentary understanding of how to use a mouse, a keyboard, how to download and start an application. The built in tools for programming are far too complex and far too specialized. Shell scripting on the Mac and Linux, batch files on Windows - neither is conducive to an environment where a kid can write their own version of PacMan or Tetris. Environments like Xcode and Eclipse require a college degree to even grasp what they do, while languages like Java are too advanced to teach at the middle school level.
So, how do we introduce programming to children ? Algorithmic thinking is an important skill for a 21st century world even if you don't end up becoming a software engineer. I have shown my 6 year old daughter how to program in MIT Scratch. To spice things up I put the Scratch itself on a USB stick and showed her how to load and save her programs. She seems to get it.
What is needed, however, is a very simple computer that boots into the BASIC interpreter much like the home computers of 1980s. Programmable calculators fulfill this goal to an extent and by all means should be introduced in schools at a very early stage. But nothing excites the imagination as a more tangible computer with tools that help a child produce a shareable executable program they can show off. Raspberry Pi is extremely intriguing and I am tempted to order one. But then - my kids are still too young to appreciate it and I am too busy, but I know a day is coming when I am going to show them how to get a small inexpensive computer do amazing things.
I continue to encounter web sites that appear not to function in, say, Firefox and Chrome, but work in Internet Explorer.
Well, here is my take. There is nothing, zero, zilch, nil that IE provides that Firefox, Safari and Chrome do not. Therefore, if you application only functions well in a particular browser but not others it is a demonstration to the world of your lack of knowledge and understanding of modern web technologies.
There is absolutely no excuse to require browser compatibility in this day and age.
I don't like IE. I use Firefox. It is my personal choice and I couldn't care less if my computer came with a browser preinstalled. I really don't.
Opera needs to come to terms with their niche market. Demanding that Windows 7 is shipped with multiple browsers is an idea that won't work in the interests of the end users. It will make an already horrible and over-complicated operating system even more awful.
Opera said that if Microsoft's plan would be the final outcome it would have no impact on Internet Explorer's dominant role.
"Then we would be very disappointed. That means Microsoft's dominant position will continue," Wium Lie said, adding operating systems should be sold with several browsers -- giving consumers the choice -- not with no browsers at all.
Google launched a new feature called Google Web Elements today at its Google I/O developer conference in San Francisco. The new tool, available starting today, allows web publishers to easily add Google content, from news feeds to calendars to maps, with a simple cut and paste. While the search giant has made these APIs available in the past, Elements makes them understandable and accesible for non-developers and other layman users.