Letterpress “house rules”

Posted on by

Recently, Jim Biancolo alerted me to an article he posted regarding informal “house rules” for playing Letterpress. The article linked to two other similar postings by other players (Brent Simmons and Daniel Jalkut). As a fan of this great game (I’ve previously written two articles on Letterpress strategy), I want to offer my thoughts regarding these “rules.”

First off, I completely agree with two of the rules cited by the above players:

• If you win a game, let your opponent go first on a rematch. That is, allow the loser the advantage of the first move on the next game. Usually, this happens automatically in games I play, as the loser challenges the winner for a rematch.

• Don’t use any “cheater” apps or websites while playing a game. This should be obvious. There’s a reason they call these programs “cheats.” And that’s the reason you should stay away from them. After the game is over, it’s okay to look at them to potentially learn words you might have otherwise played. But not during the game.

There is one minor exception to this for me. I am still waiting for Loren to update Letterpress (as he previously informed me he was planning to do) so that you can check the validity of a word when it is your turn. As it now stands, you can only do this when it is your opponent’s turn. If you enter a valid word when it’s your turn, it plays…period.

There are many times when I want to know if a word is valid without necessarily playing it. In fact, there are times when I have no intention of ever playing a given word. I instead want to know if I need to worry about my opponent playing it. So, in such cases, I look up the word. I don’t consider this cheating.

As to the rest of the suggested rules, I generally do not agree with them. In particular:

• I wouldn’t end a game in a tie after 50 moves. Rather, I plow on until someone wins or resigns.

• I don’t consider it off-limits to play a word like STOPPED if my opponent plays a similar word of the same length, like STOPPER. I especially wouldn’t consider abiding by this when I have no idea if my opponent is doing so, as is usually the case.

Similarly, I make no effort to avoid playing a word with a prefix or suffix added to my opponent’s word. I do check to see if there is a better word I could play instead. But if I can’t find one, I would have no hesitation about playing REACTIONS, for example, after my opponent played REACTION.

More than that, I believe this is a positive part of the strategy of the game. For example, I might see that the words STOPPER, STOPPERED, STOPPERS, STOPPED and STOPS are all available. Before I would play any of those words, I try to think through the implications of my opponent playing the other words in response. Figuring out how best to play the sequence takes skill. Perhaps the best strategy will be not to play any of the words until your opponent plays one first.

Such sequences sometimes lead me to try unusual approaches. For example, there are situations where I might play ADVISE even though I know ADVISES is playable. The reason is that I see that ADVISED is also available. By playing ADVISE, if my opponent replies with ADVISES, I can come back with ADVISED. If I played ADVISES first, and my opponent played ADVISED, I would have no come back.

• Finally, I don’t try to win with the smallest possible advantage. To the contrary, I go for the largest margin of victory I can get. Once again, I view knowing how to maximize your win as part of the skill of the game. However, I do have a limit. The limit is I will not unduly prolong a game simply to up the score differential. Once it’s clear that I have the game won, I try to expedite the ending. However, if I see a game ending in about the same number of moves, and I wind up with a bigger score by using word A rather than word B, I will take word A every time.

One rule I would add to the list:

• If you give up on a game, resign. Don’t just abandon the game and leave your opponent dangling, unsure if you ever intend to play again.

Smaller is the new larger

Posted on by

Back in the old days (of less than a decade ago), for any device that had a screen, users most lusted for the largest size they could get. Cost and space considerations might prohibit such a purchase, but “bigger is better” remained the mantra.

Old: Bigger is better

Interested in buying a laptop? It was the 17-inch model that turned the most heads. Deciding on a new iMac? If you had the dough, you got the one with the largest display.

Over the years, Apple’s Cinema/Thunderbolt Displays have increased in size from 22” to 27”. You can’t buy a smaller one today even if you wanted to do so.

Getting a new flat-panel television? The preferred choice has been the largest one that fits within your room and your budget.

New: Smaller is better

In the last few years, however, the apple of a tech user’s eye has often taken a U-turn.

Apple has eliminated any 17-inch laptop from its lineup. Even the 15-inch MacBook Pro seems to be falling out of favor, as the 13-inch size emerges as the new standard. For the MacBook Air, many reviewers cite the 11-inch model as preferable to the 13-inch. A similar situation exists with the iPad Air vs. iPad mini, with a majority of reviews (at least among the ones that I’ve read) leaning towards a preference for the mini.

That’s right…even techno-savvy “power users” that write reviews, and for whom price is usually not a prime consideration, often say they want the smallest model they can get. What a turn-around!

Apple’s new Mac Pro is being lauded for its small size, compared to the old Mac Pro behemoth…even though the size reduction comes at the expense of internal expandability.

Among flat-panel TVs, larger sizes still rule. But even here, I’ve noticed a trend towards downsizing from a few years ago. Buyers now seem more averse to getting a television that overpowers their room — unless they are setting up the room as a dedicated home theater. Users also seem increasingly content to watch movies on their iPads, skipping the larger television entirely.

What’s going on?

What exactly is going on here? What’s behind this seismic shift, with smaller now the new larger?

To some extent, it’s been developing for quite some time. Sales of laptops have long ago eclipsed desktop machines, despite a laptop’s much smaller display. In fact, many analysts predict that consumer desktop computers will disappear from the landscape altogether in the not-too-distant future. For most, the convenience of being able to move around with the computer outweighs all other considerations.

However, I trace the origins of the more recent surge to the arrival of the iPhone. The iPhone was the first device to offer most of the functionality of a laptop computer, but with a size that could fit in your pocket. Suddenly, mobility and portability were the buzz words of the day.

With the advent of the iPad, even laptops are now viewed as heavy and clunky in comparison. Tablets are well on their way to replacing laptops as the primary computing device of the masses.

Helping to fuel this transition are improvements in display quality. In the past, buying a small-sized device often required accepting a trade-off of an impractically tiny display. But with today’s higher resolution screens, including Apple’s Retina display, a small display can show an incredible amount of real estate and still have legible text.

The result is that smaller is not only more acceptable these days, but preferred — especially for those who place a high value on mobility. Such users increasingly extol the advantages of smaller. They complain that you can’t use a full-sized iPad with one hand or that a 15-inch laptop is too big to use within the confines of an airline seat. Smaller sizes are deemed more convenient for any sort of travel.

There remains one major exception to this shift: smartphones. Although Apple has so far largely resisted the trend, Android users have shown a preference for the largest phone that can fit in their pocket (or, in some cases, one too large to fit). There are now 6-inch Android smartphones! Perhaps conceding to this trend, there are rumors that Apple will release a larger iPhone later this year.

Of course, even a 6-inch phone is still quite small — compared to a tablet, a laptop or a desktop computer.

Overall, I view the shift towards “smaller is better” as part of a larger technological and cultural shift away from viewing computers as a “destination” (something you go to an office to sit down and use) towards becoming a transparent and ever-present part of our lives. I suppose the inevitable end-point will be when computers are implanted in our brains and have no external size at all. Not to worry. That’s still at least a few years away.

My Mac Pro column: A reply to comments

Posted on by

Last week, I posted a column detailing why I thought the high cost and, to a lesser extent, the limited internal expandability of the forthcoming Mac Pro would mean that many current Mac Pro owners, including myself, would not upgrade to the new model.

Based on the large number of retweets and Facebook “likes” the article generated, it apparently resonated positively with a significant segment of readers. That’s always nice to see. However, you wouldn’t have guessed this by just reading the posted comments, which were mainly critical. I guess that’s to be expected; people are generally more motivated to write when they disagree. [Update: Dec. 4: Interestingly, most of the comments posted in the last two days have been positive. Go figure.]

I’ve read and considered all the comments. Rather than separately respond to each one, I decided to offer this more general reply. As many of the comments repeated the same basic points, this seemed a more reasonable and effective way to go.

Paradigm shift? Maybe, maybe not

Numerous comments indicated that the new Mac Pro represents a “paradigm shift.” In contrast, I was accused of being stuck in “old school” mode, unable to “get it.”

Most especially, rather than viewing the shift in emphasis from internal to external storage as a negative, many viewed it as preferable. They noted that, with the superfast Thunderbolt 2 connectors, users would be unlikely to see any speed deficit with external drives as compared to internal storage. Further, external drives give you more flexibility, allowing you to add or swap drives with ease. One commenter even questioned why anyone would need more than 256GB of internal storage anymore.

I am generally as enthusiastic about embracing paradigm shifts as anyone. I am not typically one to reject any change that represents progress. So I have to admit that it’s possible I’ve missed the mark here.

However, let me be clear: This is not an either-or situation. It’s not as if one has to choose to keep all storage internal or all external (beyond some minimal 256GB). I have a combination of internal and external drives now with my current Mac Pro, and I would expect that arrangement to continue with any new model I might purchase. So, you can have your cake and eat it too.

Still, there is a certain minimum amount of software (applications, documents, media etc.) that I prefer to keep on my startup drive. For one thing, I like to know that, in the event that the Thunderbolt connection fails for any reason, I still have access to these essentials. And 256GB is not sufficient to allow me to do this.

In this regard, it’s worth noting that a 27-inch iMac with a 1TB Fusion drive can be had for under $2000. A 1TB Fusion drive Mac mini costs under $1000. You can get a MacBook Pro with 512GB for as little as $1800. These are common configurations. Certainly, I would expect desktop Pro users to want at least as much storage. At the very least, I can’t see viewing a smaller drive as an advantage.

Still, some commenters compared the situation here to previous Apple-initiated “paradigm shifts” involving getting rid of floppy drives or, more recently, optical drives.

“Again Apple has seen the future much sooner than most. Remember when everyone was up in arms because Apple stopped using the floppy disk? Seems rather silly now, huh?”

One problem I see with such comparisons is that these other shifts began on Apple’s lowest cost machines—the iMac or the MacBook Air. They eventually spread throughout the Mac’s entire line-up. In contrast, this supposed shift in emphasis from internal to external storage is making its first appearance with Apple’s top-of-the-line machine. I will be surprised if it trickles down to iMacs and laptops. If this is a paradigm shift, it is one that will be restricted to pro desktops.

More generally, there is the Mac Pro’s relative lack of internal expansion options of any kind, not just storage. In this case, I do see a more typical paradigm shift in play here. There is virtually no internal expansion for today’s MacBooks and iMacs. This approach has now spread to the Mac Pro as well. This is clearly the direction Apple wants to go, for better or worse. In either case, I don’t view it as a “deal-breaker” for the Pro. So I don’t want to make too much of this.

For professionals only? Yes

A related criticism was that I didn’t grasp that the Mac Pro wasn’t meant for users such as myself. Rather, it was meant for “high-end professionals”—users who will come out financially ahead by buying a Mac Pro because its “tech spec” advantages will save money in the long-run, outweighing its initial high cost.

In some of these cases, I have to wonder whether the readers didn’t actually read my column. The comments seem to be attacking a “straw man”—someone who was claiming that new Mac Pros are inferior machines with problems that are so telling that the machines are doomed to fail. When the Mac Pro goes on sale and proves to be a success, this straw man will “eat his words.”

The problem with these arguments is that I never said or implied any such thing. In contrast, I recognized that the Mac Pro is most assuredly a “professionals-only” machine—designed for people working in video production, graphics layout, publishing, science labs and such. I specifically stated that “the new Mac Pro will appeal to this small but profitable professional market.” Indeed, I expect this market will enthusiastically embrace the new Mac Pro. I also acknowledged the Mac Pro is attractive even to a “not high-end user” such as myself: “The promise of lightning-fast speed combined with the allure of its futuristic cylindrical design seemed irresistible.”

My key assertion was a limited one: Given the high cost of a “fully configured” Mac Pro setup—especially when compared to the improved relative performance of Apple’s latest less expensive Macs—I expect most “pro-sumers” (not high-end professionals) who previously opted for a Mac Pro will not do so this time around.

There was a time when the Mac Pro line suited the needs of more than just the highest end of the market. This no longer appears to be the case. This doesn’t mean the Mac Pro is doomed. But it does mean that the Mac Pro will have a more narrow appeal. At least, that’s my assessment. If I’m wrong, we’ll know soon enough.

Expensive? Yes, but

Speaking of cost, a few commenters challenged my basic assertion that a new Mac Pro setup is “expensive.” To buttress their argument, some cited examples of the much higher costs of previous generation computing devices, going back as far as decades ago. Such comparisons don’t make much sense to me. Yes, computers back in the 1960’s could cost hundred of thousands, if not millions, of dollars and yet have less computing power than today’s iPhone. But so what? That’s not the choice facing today’s users.

It may also be true that the new Mac Pro is cheaper than some workstation solutions that exist today. Again, this is largely besides the point.

The simple point is this: The new Mac Pro, even adjusted for inflation, will cost significantly more than a comparable prior-generation Mac Pro. Unless you truly need a workstation-like machine, it’s going to be very hard to justify this cost.

Whining? Sigh

Not surprisingly, some comments amounted to name-calling attacks—using phrases such as “whiner,” “strained hit piece,” “yellow journalism” and more. Such is life on the Internet.

Some of these commenters clearly have no idea of my background. If they did, they would know that I have owned nothing but Apple computing devices since buying a Macintosh in 1984. I have made a career writing about Apple products, primarily lauding their advantages over the competition. The idea that I would be motivated to write some sort of “hit piece” is almost funny.

Even if this were not the case, such comments shed no light on the discussion. That’s why, beyond what I’ve written already, I see little point in directly responding to these comments. It only gives the commenters more attention than they deserve.

Happily, most of the comments did not fall into this “attack” category. Rather, they were respectful disagreements. As such, they pushed me to rethink my positions, in an effort either to better defend them or to change them. I always welcome that opportunity.

What’s going on with iWork?

Posted on by

In the unlikely event that you haven’t yet heard, let me be the one to break the news to you: the new iWork ’13 apps for OS X have been “dumbed down.” At least that’s the prevailing view. Distressed at the loss of numerous significant features from the previous iWork ’09 versions, including vanishing AppleScript support, many users have lamented that the new apps amount to “an unmitigated disaster.”

At the same time, other users have just as strongly cautioned against over-reacting to these changes. For example, in his Macworld review of Keynote 6.0, Joe Kissell wrote:

 “Despite the missing features, it would be unfair to characterize Keynote 6 as being ‘dumbed down.’ Indeed, Apple has added splendid capabilities that make Keynote smarter in several respects.”

Matthew Panzarino, writing on TechCrunch, offered a similar reaction:

“Lots of folks are getting all worked up about iWork being ‘dumbed down,’ but it feels like a reset to me.”

These more benign interpretations emphasize that the new iWork ’13 apps are not really upgrades from the previous versions. Rather, they are entirely redesigned-from-the-ground-up new programs. Having to make this sort of drastic revision, especially within the inevitable time and resource constraints, almost guarantees that some features will get dropped along the way.

So why did Apple make such drastic changes? The obvious and conventional wisdom answer is that Apple wanted to bring parity and cross-platform compatibility to the OS X and iOS versions of the iWork apps. Doing this required a rewrite of the software. In this goal, almost everyone agrees that Apple succeeded. You can seamlessly move among the apps on each platform without skipping a beat. As Jeffery Battersby put it in his review of Pages for iOS:

“There is now no noticeable difference between all of Apple’s Pages apps.”

Or, as Nigel Warren explained:

 “The fact that iWork on the Mac has lost functionality isn’t because Apple is blind to power users. It’s because they’re willing to make a short-term sacrifice in functionality so that they can create a foundation that is equal across the Mac, iOS, and web versions.”

Given the tortured history of cross-platform file syncing among iWork documents, this is great news. As for the lost features, the optimists expect them to return over time. There is certainly precedent for this expectation, most notably with Final Cut Pro X. Similarly, just last week, after the release of a new version of iMovie met with the same sorts of criticism, Apple promised that it will at least return the ability to import movie projects between iOS and Macs. Even better, Apple just announced that it intends to “reintroduce some of the [missing iWork] features in the next few releases.” [Update: See this Apple support article for more details.]

Still, there is a big question that remains: How far will this recovery go? Can we really expect that all or almost all of the MIA features will be restored? My answer is: No.

Given the admirable intent to maintain seamless cross-platform compatibility, Apple cannot restore features to the OS X versions of iWork apps unless those features can be matched on iOS devices, especially if the inconsistency would break the ability of a file to look and act the same on both platforms. Given the inherent limitations of iOS compared to OS X, including the more severe restrictions of sandboxing in iOS, this means that certain iWork ’09 features will be lost for a long long time. Perhaps forever.

As one example, I believe AppleScript falls into this category. There is no AppleScript in iOS, and I don’t expect this to change. As such, I doubt will we ever see any significant restoration of AppleScript in the OS X iWork apps. [Update: Despite Apple’s promise to “make improvements to AppleScript support” in future versions Keynote and Numbers, I don’t expect this to amount to much.] This doesn’t mean that Apple intends to entirely drop AppleScript from OS X. But it does mean a lessening of support for it going forward. There’s a chance that Apple might introduce some entirely new method of automation, one that works on both Macs and iOS devices. But I wouldn’t assign a high probability to this.

Apple’s actions here should not be a big surprise. They continue a trend that has been developing and growing over the past several years. Apple’s mobile devices have eclipsed Macs as the company’s primary source of revenue and profit. The result is that the evolution of OS X and OS X apps is driven by how well they integrate with iPhones and iPads.

Apple isn’t abandoning its power users. At least not yet. There’s a new Mac Pro coming (although it has already caused some grumbling due to its lack of internal expandability) and Apple continues to support apps such as Final Cut Pro. But these make up a shrinking portion of Apple’s revenue. And they live in an environment separate from concerns about iOS compatibility. There’s no iOS equivalent of Final Cut Pro.

The consumer market is Apple’s future, its “bread-and-butter.” Many analysts have predicted that, over the next several years, desktop machines — and perhaps even laptops— will all but vanish as users increasingly adopt tablets as their only computing device. To the extent that this happens, for any consumer Mac software that survives, compatibility with iOS devices will far outweigh any consideration about what “pro” features may be missing. Marco Tabini makes a similar point in a recent Macworld article:

 “…it’s also possible that Apple is ‘dumbing down’ its apps because the company believes that the kind of comprehensive software to which we have become accustomed will no longer belong in the personal computing landscape of the future.”

I agree. For the vast majority of users, what we used to do with apps such as iWork (and Microsoft Office, for that matter) will become an increasingly distant and irrelevant memory. What we expect from computing devices and how we interact them is undergoing a dramatic shift. Inexpensive, more focused, simple-to-use software is the currency of the day. The new iWork apps are not an aberration. Despite what concessions Apple may make going forward, Apple has no intention of reversing directions. Whether you call it “dumbing down” or “iOS-ification,” whether you view it as an overall positive or negative shift, this is where things are headed. Get on board, get out of the way, or get run over.