Whenever I talk to a customer about something which is clearly in my domain (anything related to web application development), I try to ensure that everything I want to say first goes through a ‘customer translator’ which turns my domain knowledge into something they might understand. This translator works in the opposite direction too.

However, I’ve realised this week that this approach is sometimes required for people who work in the same domain or have similar roles to me. The benefit of using domain knowledge and terminology is that it allows you to be explicit and succinct. However, if others aren’t being as explicit or succinct as you think they should be (inferring their expected expertise) then problems can occur. My advice is to question everything, especially if it just seems wrong. Sometimes just one character can make all the difference.

One day I’ll write a post entitled something like “Why HD doesn’t matter”, in which I will suggest that High Definition is merely a passing fad and relate this to the difference in one’s relationship between music and film. Until then, here’s a quote from John Gruber, who whilst picking at the drivel in a Wall Street Journal report regarding Flash, Adobe and Apple, writes this:

[Apple] have the opportunity to establish QuickTime and H.264 as the de facto standards for mobile video on the web.

I agree with John, apart from a couple of words which should be struck out, and two added. Here’s my alternative:

[Apple] have the opportunity to establish QuickTime and H.264 as the de facto standards for video and film.

As well as revealing new iPlayer traffic figures, the BBC also today announced that the iPlayer service is to be made available on Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch devices.

So says the Guardian.

If it’s not realised through Adobe Flash (which these devices currently don’t support), then it will probably be similar to how YouTube works on these devices. Alternatively we’ll get some lame web pages that merely direct to Quicktime content.

Back in July last year I suggested that the BBC should ditch iPlayer and sign up with iTunes. BBC Worldwide – a separate commercial entity – started on this path this week with the release of programmes on iTunes after they expire from their iPlayer obligations.

What’s the betting that we’ll eventually see everything via iTunes as the iPlayer solution for the Mac? And for Windows too?

A brief companion piece to Three Ps.

When it comes to business, many people don’t like to spend a lot of money on an unknown venture, especially if they’re not sure that the direction they’ll be going in is the right one. Perhaps they don’t trust their instincts enough, or perhaps they don’t trust the people who are advising them.

But if such a timid approach leads to reduced productivity, mis-communication, loss of sales or of staff, or maybe something more calamitous, it becomes easier to step back and decide to throw lots of money at an alternative solution.

Translation: it’s easier to blame technology than Policies, Procedures or People.

Here are two thoughts I’ve had for a little while:

• That the space under my Apple Cinema Display could be put to better use
• That my USB hub appends itself ridiculously to my working environment

Then, today, I discover this solution:

The LowKey Stand. More here (although the guys commenting on that post clearly don’t understand how to connect all of their equipment.)

Will it appear in the UK? Please?

All I’ve ever read since the launch of Apple’s MacBook Air are two complaints: it’s underpowered and it’s only useful as a second computer. Both of these assertions are flat out wrong.

As a software development and web design company we do quite a lot of work that requires various types of tools: compilers, operating system emulators (i.e. Windows and Solaris), web development tools (e.g. Coda, TextMate, Macromedia Dreamweaver and Fireworks), design tools (Adobe Creative Suite, iWork), photo editing and video editing software. All our Adobe and Macromedia software runs under Rosetta – Apple’s PowerPC to Intel dynamic code translator. All of this software works fine on our Macs, so what Macs do we use?

First generation MacBooks. Running Mac OS X 10.5.1.

That’s right: ones that are underpowered compared to the MacBook Air. Laptops too!

I don’t expect our experience to be typical – most businesses need even less computational power and storage. So why the uproar?

Because people don’t want to be ordinary. They don’t want to admit that their needs are about the same as everyone else. My assertion is this: the MacBook Air suits the computing needs of 90% of the population. For personal or business use.

The benefit MacBooks bring our business is striking: we can hook up an external display to them – I use a 23” Cinema Display. We can take them on visits to clients. No hassle or need for synchronisation. We can take them on holiday with us – when a customer needs a quick tweak or change to their website or software, we can do this remotely. It makes us more efficient and available.

And.. it amuses us when we see the junk that other people use.

Our business sometimes gets asked to advise on either computer software or web applications that could help a business improve its efficiency or communications. Invariably, the opinion of clients is that problems will be solved, in one way or another, by software.

The truth is different: an inefficiently run business will only become better at being inefficient, by using software or a web application. In most cases adopting this technology will always make a business less efficient, at best, in the short term, at worst, forever. Instead attention should be given to what a business has or doesn’t have. In particular, there are three things that a business should have before it even starts to consider technology:

• The right Policies
• The right Procedures
• The right People

Technology is only there to empower and enable people to carry out procedures more effectively. There is no simple solution or quick fix.

The spies have reported:

What does “There’s something in the air” mean? And why the unusual font?

I don’t know and at this moment I don’t care. What I want from Apple next Tuesday are products and services that acknowledge these two symbiotic axioms:

• If content is easier to steal than to buy, some people will steal it
• If content is easier to buy than to steal, most people will buy it

It’s ironic that when it comes to digital content, most content is still easier to steal than to buy.

Don’t believe me? Okay, why is it that to buy a CD from a Norwegian artist, I had to buy it from Switzerland. Or why when I wanted to buy a CD from an English group, did I have to buy it from the US? Or when I wanted to buy a CD from a Swiss group.. I couldn’t. Two of these CDs were readily available on P2P networks. This complaint is directed to everyone involved in the music business – musicians, their record labels and the stores.

But the music business isn’t nearly as screwed up as the film industry. It’s bizarre that you can steal a genuine DVD-rip of a Hollywood movie before it receives its cinema debut in the UK. The staggered releases of films propagate and extend the promotional rounds, intended to get more people to the box office. Instead it serves as an ideal opportunity for people to subvert the industry and reduce its revenue.

Why not have a ‘release once, release everywhere’ philosophy, and sell a film online at the same time? Is the industry scared of lost revenue, or perhaps of closures of cinemas? Despite the success of the iTunes Store and other online music sellers, 80% of music is still purchased on CD. I would suggest that given the current (but reducing margin) between the experience of watching at cinema and at home, films could be released simultaneously, offline, online and in stores, without much consequence. Some people, like myself, may even prefer watching films at home.

Here are some ideas that the industry could consider:

1. One-time viewing or permanent purchase of a film, delivered online, released at the same time as its cinematic debut.
2. Redeemable voucher for cinema-goers for subsequent purchase of DVD or online purchase of film, thus making it worthwhile to go to the cinema.
3. Corresponding e-voucher to allow an upgrade from one-time viewing to permanent ownership.
4. DVD (film only version) released at the same time as its cinematic debut.
5. Corresponding voucher for on-line delivery of the extra features once available (or perhaps make these available for purchase separately).
6. Full DVD release with extra features.
7. All DVDs and online purchases to be transportable to other devices (this is something that Fox appears to be considering with DVDs) – and without restriction.