Cory Bohon

On Wednesday, I wrote a post on TUAW detailing my experiences with push notifications on the first generation iPhone running OS 3.0 gold master. Below is the original post that I wrote:

If you bought the original iPhone, you have the pride of being the first to own one… but you will also be left out when you install and use some of the nice new features in the iPhone 3.0 update.

Push notifications could also end up being a flop for other iPhone users too. Due to the structure of the service, push notifications can get lost in transit, and pushes to the same app (possibly all pushes) kick older ones out of the push queue.

In the post, I give a brief overview of the basic differences between the two iPhone cell networks, and why you cannot tie up a data connection and expect to receive phone calls. With push notifications, your iPhone will consistently maintain a semi-permanent connection to Apple’s servers (this is in keeping with the push technology). In the post, I mentioned that it “may” affect iPhone users on EDGE networks — I never said the problem would be widespread, nor that it would affect all users. I simply noted that due to the nature of EDGE, 1st gen users might be left out. See this video for a demonstration of the problem.

Some people contacted me after the post was written and told me that they never experienced the problem that I was writing about — they very well might not have experienced the problem. I experienced the problem. I wrote about it. I thought that this was a problem because I could recreate the problem any time I wanted to. As a technology blogger, I thought it was in keeping to write about it and explain what I had seen.

What I don’t agree with is TUAW’s “editors” trying to explain what I had experienced, and try to apologize for me, when I had done nothing wrong. I was not spreading incorrect rumors, nor was I trying to make up (or “sensationalize”) the problem that I was experiencing and had seen with my own eyes. Someone at TUAW wrote a post and basically slapped me in the face for writing my post on Push Notifications. The truth is that most of the people trying to apologize for me didn’t, in fact, even have an iPhone — much less one running iPhone 3.0GM. Sure, they might have been doing “damage control,” but they were not being true to themselves. Being unbiased is what good journalism is about, but being biased and not allowing any work to go out that speaks bad about a company/product is just completely wrong.

Some might see this as a little fight between bloggers, but coming from the inside, I can tell you that it’s more than that. This is all that I want to say right now about the situation, but I shall reveal more in the future. I wanted to clarify and I hope this helped the situation. I appreciate all of my readers and don’t want to lose any of them. However, I cannot let a situation like this pass me by without explaining myself. I’m sure that some people would like to see me fail, but there are even more people that want to see me succeed. I’m writing this letter to the people who believe in me.

Imagine getting online one day, only to find out that you can’t access your favorite website. Perhaps it’s Facebook, MySpace, or any number of other social networking websites, but none of them seem to work. You quickly call your Internet provider, but after talking to them find out that in order to gain access to that site, you’ll need to pay more money. Unfortunately, this is what Internet providers want: An Internet that they can control, where people would purchase packages of access similar to the way subscription television is purchased. The issue is net neutrality, or keeping the Internet neutral, and there is a huge fight between consumers, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and providers of Internet access (e.g. Verizon, Comcast, etc.).

As defined by the founder of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, net neutrality is, “If I pay to connect to the [Internet] with a certain quality of service [or speed], and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communication at that level” (Berners-Lee). Basically, net neutrality means that if you pay for Internet access, you should be able to share information freely, without being barred from accessing any online service. The topic of net neutrality has been around since the World Wide Web was formed in the early 1990s; however, over the past few years, it has quickly switched from being only about accessing certain websites, to being about sharing large files over peer-to-peer networks (either through BitTorrent or Kazzaa, etc.), and through to watching streaming video through sites like Hulu.com or from podcasts. Because many of the Internet providers also have ties with subscription television services (either cable or satellite), they want you to buy television from them, not watch Á la carte streaming shows online through various websites. Because moving large files around over the Internet costs money and bandwidth (how much information you can push through the network), Internet providers want to charge more for access. According to Senator Ted Stevens, the senator of Alaska and leading advocate of anti-neutrality practices, “The current contribution mechanism of assessing only interstate revenue is broken and it needs reform.” He went on to say that his proposed reform would charge more for an Internet connection to a business than a residential connection (United States Senate). Charging more for access to online services is preposterous; not only would it make businesses struggle more in the hard economic times going on today, but it might also cause prices for products and/or services from these companies to skyrocket. It is simple economics that leads us to believe that if businesses are charged more for services that make their company run, then the cost will almost certainly be passed on to the consumer.

Currently, Internet providers have taken matters into their own hands without asking the FCC (the governmental body responsible for regulating communications) for approval. Comcast, a large cable Internet provider recently started monitoring the activities of their customers, and re-routed Internet traffic that looked like peer-to-peer file sharing through BitTorrent. When they spotted this activity, they would re-route it so the traffic would never reach the computer it was trying to be sent to. As you can see, net neutrality moves far beyond the bounds of simply limiting connections to specific websites – Internet providers are also targeting different online activities and services (Mark).

Many Internet providers want to control what people can access, and charge fees based on multiple levels of access, or tiers. These tiers might be based on “packages” similar to cable (or satellite) television packages where you might buy a tier to access certain sites or services. According to Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford University, “[The Internet’s] unique design transformed it into a resource for innovation that anyone in the world could use. Today, however, courts and corporations are attempting to wall off portions of cyberspace” (56).

Internet providers don’t want the government or people to interfere with their “business plans” either. Comcast is one such company that has been limiting customer use of BitTorrent, a popular peer-to-peer way to share large files over the Internet. “Comcast determines how it will route some connections based not on their destinations, but on their contents, a clear violation of the FCC’s network neutrality principles” (Mark, 10). In addition to limiting BitTorrent use, other Internet providers have started putting into place “monthly bandwidth limits.” With these kinds of limits, you are restricted as to the amount of information you can access on the Internet; these limits came about because Internet providers don’t want to see their users eating up bandwidth due to downloading tons of videos online … it would also protect their stake in any subscription television business.

I believe that reform needs to be done when it comes to how Internet providers are able to change their ideas on Internet connectivity. Tim Berners-Lee believes that the web was created as a place for people to share information freely. While the basic concept remains the same today, there are also ventures into online delivery of media, online stores, and other online ventures that are for profit. I think that the FCC should have a say in how Internet providers are allowed to operate their business models, and how they can charge for access. Charging for different levels of service (speed) is one thing, but when they start limiting what can be done with an Internet connection, the basic principles behind the Internet are at stake.

This problem needs to be addressed before the big Internet providers get their way and the Internet as we know it will become a locked-down system of corruption. Not only will consumers be paying more for their Internet access, but they will also be getting a lot less with the proposed form of service.

A war is raging away between Internet service providers (ISPs), consumers, businesses, and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). ISPs want to limit what consumers can access online, and consumers and businesses want to keep the Internet the same as it is now: Neutral and equal access for everyone. Equal access to online services means an equal playing field for all online companies, search providers, and content providers – if we remove this level playing field, we risk losing the free online “economy” that we have created over the past decade. We need to tell the FCC and the numerous Internet service providers that we don’t want our Internet touched, and that everything is better left alone.
Tim Berners-Lee also says, “There have been suggestions that we don’t need legislation because we haven’t had [net neutrality] before. These are nonsense, because in fact we have had net neutrality in the past – it is only recently that real explicit threats have occurred. Control of information is hugely powerful. In the US, the threat is that companies control what I can access for commercial reasons … I hope that Congress can protect net neutrality, so I can continue to innovate in the Internet space” (Berners-Lee). He basically says that the innovation that is occurring online, such as startup companies that are overly successful, is only available if the Internet remains neutral. If we don’t keep the Internet neutral, the creativity and the invention of these new technological advances will cease to be as present as they are now.

If we give net neutrality the ability to cease, we will also cease to have inexpensive access to vital information. Internet providers will not only charge more, but will dramatically reduce competition of online services and sites, leading to monopolistic practices that aren’t good for anyone. According to a Congressional research paper prepared by Angele Gilroy for members of Congress, “… If network providers have control over who is given priority access, the ability to discriminate among who gets such access is also present. If such a scenario were to develop, the potential benefits to consumers of a prioritized network would be lessened by a decrease in consumer choice and/or increased costs, if the fees charged for premium access are passed on to the consumer” (Gilroy, 4).

The topic of net neutrality is dynamically split, although not in half. There seems to be two sides to the story: Internet users and businesses seem to want the Internet to remain neutral, while Internet providers want to move to a tiered business model that would bring them more money. Verizon’s CTO, Richard Lynch said, “We need to guard against turning technical and business decisions into political decisions” (Mark, 10). Lynch made that comment in reference to the government intervening in the Comcast situation. Comcast was involved in the re-routing of Internet peer-to-peer traffic that involved BitTorrent access. Congress eventually ruled against Comcast’s ability to do this without getting FCC approval first.

My proposal is very simple. First, we need to educate citizens on the importance of net neutrality. Not only will this situation have a lasting effect on every American with Internet access, but it will seriously limit the amount of technological innovation occurring. We don’t need to go back to the Stone Age when we can easily advance our generation and culture by continuing on our path. Secondly, we need to also inform the congressional leaders that this is an important matter, which will change our future, and persuade them to vote down any bills and legislation that would hinder net neutrality.

Some people might argue, “Companies should have the right to charge anything they want to, after all, it’s their network and they can choose what gets routed through it. If someone doesn’t like it they can choose another Internet provider.” While providers do often times own their networks, they don’t have the right to discriminate what you can access or send through it. The basic formation of the Internet was the ability to share thing freely online. Just as phone companies don’t have the right to discriminate who you can call, Internet providers shouldn’t have the ability to discriminate what online services or websites you can access.

Another person might also say, “Why not just charge the companies who grow businesses online the fees, instead of passing along the access fees to consumers?” But the fact is that if you plan on charging businesses like eBay, Google, or Facebook with these user access fees, then you risk losing many good, free, online services that provide a lot of value for Internet users. Not only would this cost be a burden added on top of what these companies already pay for Internet fees, you would also risk the ability for startup ventures to be successful. Startups would also need more venture capital, which would lead to fewer investors willing to handout the initial investments. Overall, this would be a bad idea as well. Too many regulations and fees don’t help anyone. Writing in the journal Economic and Political Weekly, Sruti Chaganti states that the future lies in computer networks. He believes, “Business on the net is easy and with the variety of services offered it is of little wonder that people are increasingly turning to the net for everyday living. The future lies there – in a network of computers spanning the globe” (3587).

Keeping the Internet neutral and free from limitations will allow us to keep the same online freedoms that we have now. Only the FCC can ensure that our Internet remains this way by specifying what Internet Service Providers have the ability to limit, and how/if they can limit service. One thing is certain though: If we don’t act fast, and efficiently, then Internet providers will end up winning over consumer and online business freedoms. There are websites like SaveTheInernet.com that allow you to voice your opinion, and speak your mind about the topic of net neutrality (Free Press). Another option for letting the government know you want change in the way Internet providers operate is letting your local and state representatives know that this issue is important to you. Just as many people don’t know about the issues surrounding net neutrality, many local, state, and federal officials don’t either. If we stand together, we can invoke change that will help everyone, and if enough people stand up to what is right, then perhaps the FCC and Internet providers will take note. If things change, then you won’t have to take for granted the simple thing of logging into Facebook, or watching a video online.

I recently had the opportunity to sit down (virtually) and have a chat with Kyle Richter and Ian Baird, two iPhone developers that were the brains behind Handshake and Transactions for the iPhone. The following conversation took place on Thursday, March 19, 2009, and was originally published on TUAW.

Cory: What was your vision behind creating Transactions, and why did you pursue this idea and turn it into an iPhone application?

Kyle: When working with a platform that is as new as the iPhone the goal is to try and find niches that haven’t yet be filled or not properly filled. While I was out jogging with Ian one evening it hit me that a lot of businesses have a need to accept credit cards anywhere. It felt like a perfect solution for the iPhone so we started to research the feasibility.

Ian: One of the driving influences for us has been to take advantage of the “democratizing force” of the platform. We have Authorize.net for the higher end, more professional users who will use this app on a day to day basis. We also felt we needed to make this application accessible to the farmer who’s selling his or her produce at the farmer’s market. Or the craftsperson selling his or her wares at a trade show. That was the motivation for including the Paypal option. It doesn’t require a merchant account. That’s a *big deal*.

Continue reading to hear more from Kyle and Ian about their iPhone programming experience, and advice for prospective iPhone developers.

Cory: How long have you guys been programming on the iPhone, and do you have programming experience with the Mac? What other applications do you have besides Transactions? Which platform do you prefer to work with, Mac or iPhone?

Kyle: I started working on the iPhone right before the App Store went live, I have been writing Mac software at a commercial level since April 2004. Together we have an iPhone App called Handshake. I also have several Mac apps and another iPhone game series called Trivial. At first I preferred working on the Mac, but now I think I like the iPhone more. It requires a higher awareness as a programmer to keep memory and CPU use very low. Those skills translate back into Mac programming.

Ian: I’ve been working with the iPhone since the Jailbreak days (1.x) and was lucky enough to get a beta slot for iPhone OS 2.0. Before that, I released Changes.app for the Mac. Cocktails+ and the recently “Sherlocked” Handshake are also apps that I’ve developed. Cocktails+ was developed with Martin Doudoroff and Handshake was developed with Kyle Richter. Prefer is a pretty strong word, but I’d have to say I prefer working with UIKit (iPhone) to AppKit (on the Mac). On the Mac, I really love some of the technology like Garbage Collection, which hasn’t made it to the iPhone yet.

Cory: How long did it take you to develop Transactions? Did you have any difficulties getting this type of application on the device?

Kyle: In the end it took just about 6 weeks to get everything we wanted in there and get it to market. We had two major challenges, the first being to get the account settings onto the device and to keep everything secure. The second being the user interface, we spent about 80 hours and 11 revisions getting it so it was easy to learn and powerful at the same time.

Cory: In my review of Transactions, I found several new features in the application that I don’t believe I’ve seen on the iPhone before. One such feature was the ability to setup your PayPal and Authorize.net accounts through an email link. Can you explain the features that are new to the iPhone, and why you chose to use them?

Ian: Most of the innovation in Transactions centers around the realization that text input on the device is hard for users. If you have a 25 character alphanumeric string which you have to enter into the settings view of the application, the likelihood of failure is 99.999999%. In order to help our users out with this, we decided to shift this burden to the web, where it made sense. Thus, the credentials tool was born. We also wanted to make the upgrade path from Lite to Pro a snap, so Kyle sat down and implemented the “Transfer Settings…” feature, so you wouldn’t have to retype all of those strings.

Cory: Being the developers of Handshake for iPhone, the service that allows users to share contacts and photos over-the-air, were you at all disappointed at Apple’s announcement of the contact sharing built-into their next iPhone OS?

Ian: As a user, I’m thrilled Apple has taken this step. It means I won’t have to have other people download my app in order to share things with them . As a developer, I’m a bit disappointed my app has been obsoleted (I think it’s only human), but the pros definitely outweigh the cons here. The community benefits when Apple takes a feature set and makes it accessible to everyone.

Kyle: No, not at all. We created the technology to fill a gap in the iPhone, and we did the best we could with the restrictions that we had to work with. I am really glad that Apple came along and did it right. Being “Sherlocked” is a great honor and I am glad this is the way Handshake ended, I couldn’t think of a better way to move on to the next project.

Cory: Could you clarify what “Sherlocked” is?

Kyle: Sure, “Sherlocked” is a made up word. It is used around the Mac development community as a way of saying that Apple has created new software inspired by your software and makes yours obsolete. It was coined after the features in Karelia Software’s Watson were duplicated by Sherlock 3 in 10.2.

Cory: Speaking from a development standpoint, where do you see the iPhone heading? Where do you think this platform will be in 5 years or so?

Ian: The iPhone is the logical progression of the NeXT platform, which had its start back in the late 1980s. The iPhone and the iPod touch are full-fledged personal computers which just happen to be phones or iPods. As Apple continues to expand the scope of what developers can do with the platform, applications will be created to fill just about every niche. It’s an exciting time, and the sky is the limit at this point.

There are some interesting caveats though. Competition could siphon off some of the talent you’re seeing clustered around this device and Apple needs to get a better handle on the review and feedback process for the App Store, before it alienates developers. However, I’m hopeful in this area, as I’ve seen a marked improvement by Apple on this front.

Kyle: That is a very hard question to answer. In the few short years that we have had the iPhone it has changed tremendously already. I think that Apple will continue to work at integrating the iPhone into our daily lives, we are starting to see the beginnings of this with the DJ feature in the new Remote App. Apple seems to be looking at the devices we carry around with us and bringing them one at a time into the iPhone. More and more developers keep coming to the platform and bringing new innovations with them, with more parts of the iPhone being opened up with each OS the possibilities are almost limitless. I think that we will all be very shocked with how the iPhone ends up. A lot is also going to be required from Apple if they intend to stay at the front of the mobile horse race. They need to fix some flaws with ratings, approvals, and feedback to keep developers and consumers coming back for more.

Cory: For anyone looking to be a part of the iPhone developer program, what would you say to them? Where should someone who wants to be an iPhone developer begin?

Ian: In a lot of ways, iPhone development is more difficult than Mac development. Not only do you need to learn and understand Objective-C and all of the APIs Apple has exposed, but you need to be aware of the memory, CPU, and networking restrictions imposed on a mobile platform. I think the fine folks at WWDR have done an excellent job of creating Tech Talks, Sample Code, and other training documentation which should be able to get most new developers up and running. Plus, there are the Developer Forums, which all registered iPhone developers have access to as well. Finally, I’ve been seeing some really good content on Stack Overflow, especially the material targeted at iPhone and Cocoa Touch developers.

If you have the cash, you should also consider some classes from Aaron Hillegass at the Big Nerd Ranch. The most important thing is to *write code*. Get involved in open source, create a project, just get it out there. The only way you can improve is by doing.

Kyle: I think the best place to start as an iPhone developer is on the Mac. iPhone development takes a lot of commitment and dedication to make it work. Everyone is currently focusing on the gold rush and that is not a good reason to be moving to the platform. Winning big with the iPhone right now is like winning the lottery, its probably not going to happen. If you are serious about writing apps for the iPhone then you should be coming home from work or school and writing code all night. There are many great resources available to a new developer such as the developer forums at Apple and cocoabuilder. Most importantly, though, start small and work your way up; trying to tackle a huge project is a good way to get frustrated and quit. Remember you don’t have to publish everything you code.

Twenty years ago today, Tim Berners-Lee dreamed up the most novel invention of our time: the World Wide Web. His initial proposal, which was drafted in March 1989, provided the building blocks for the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP). The first website to go online was Tim’s own in 1991. His site, which was a directory listing of all the sites to date, was run on a NeXT computer.

I’m sure Tim would never have believed the idea of the World Wide Web would take off like it has. It seems that everything we do involves a web browser and web pages written in any variety of languages. So, the next time you load a web page, you can thank Tim Berners-Lee.

[via ComputerWorld]

Many of you know that I have a MacBook Pro. I purchased the base model, so it came with 2GB of RAM. I have been wanting to upgrade it and I finally got around to doing this. I looked at a lot of different manufacturers (including Crucial, Kingston, and Corsair), but after a few friends pointed out OWC (Other World Computing) I decided to go with them.

Two people both told me about the awesome customer service they experiences with OWC but I normally don’t believe that until I can see it for myself. I ordered the 4-GB RAM kit on Wednesday around 9:30p, and was amazed when I received an email two hours later telling me that it had already been transfered to FedEx. I couldn’t believe how quickly they put together the order and got it to FedEx for shipping.

The RAM came today and I was very surprised at how easy it was to install in a 15″ Unibody MacBook Pro. I have the back panel of my MBP removed, memory installed, and put back together within 10 minutes. I tend to find myself opening tons of apps, and wanting to run VMWare Fusion at the same time — I couldn’t run VMWare efficiently when I had 2-GBs of RAM, but now that I have 4-GBs I am able to have several Mac apps open, and run two VMWare machines. Amazing. If you plan on upgrading the RAM in your unibody MBP then I highly suggest that you check out this video by Gear Live.

What RAM manufacturer do you prefer? I would like to know.