The Deconstruction: Twitter

After looking at a steadily growing mess in my apartment, I did some serious cleanup this past weekend. It's not the topic of my post, because frankly I'm not writing to cause severe boredom. But tidying up has been a theme in my life (and another post) recently, as I try to control the tangled mess of tools and distractions that have rooted themselves into my daily routine. Life is about having fun, that's absolutely clear. But it's also about being productive and getting the most out of each day. To that end, I need a clean apartment. I also need clean habits.

So let's discuss Twitter. It has literally defined what it means to be hip. The service is promoted ad nauseam on the major networks and the world's largest publications. It's featured on every sports and culture podcast I listen to, and probably most of the ones I don't. Many of my friends are on the service, as are Shaq and Britney Spears. But who actually needs Twitter?

It sounds like a simple question, and the reason I ask it is rather simplistic as well. I don't need more applications or destinations, and that means especially no more web applications or websites. I'm busy enough in the online world. Let's look at a brief list of web services and their corresponding use cases.

1. This blog, for fun.
2. Gmail, for email.
3. Facebook, for contact info/friend updates/photos (aggregated online identity, really).
4. Wikipedia, for reference.
5. ESPN.com, because I hate sports so much.
6. Because there are so many more sites like #5, I use Google Reader to aggregate them.
7. Every one of my bank accounts has some form of web access.
8. #7 requires some aggregation too, so I use Mint (for now).
9. Cable company, cell phone, utilities bill...
10. And don't even get me started on Amazon.com.

I'm not saying that Twitter competes with any of these services except Facebook (more on that later.) But there has to be a use case, a need, a purpose for an application, or else why use it?

According to the front page of the site, Twitter allows you to answer the frequently asked question: What are you doing? And that's a decent description of the service. You post updates in 140-character-or-less chunks (SMS-style), and others do the same. You can mention others in your updates, and you can watch what your friends and favorite celebrities are up to whenever you login. All of this is accomplished through a giant bird metaphor. When the company was founded, someone obviously decided that "tweet" was an underused verb in the English language. Now we've tweeted it back in to relevancy. Hooray, Beer!

The secret to Twitter's success might be the openness of the platform. Within the character limit, you can say whatever you want. Writers and hosts of shows can promote guests and stories. Celebrities can promote appearances. Comedians can post punch lines and funny updates. I can post about my delicious lunch or the latest Times article I enjoyed. It's "micro-blogging" as they call it.

All. Day. Long.

---

So it's about crafting your online identity, it would seem. Keep people up to date about "what you are doing" and everyone will enjoy it. But what specifically does that mean, at least for me? I'm not Shaq, after all, in height or in popularity. So what does my use look like, and can it be duplicated elsewhere? What's the value?

Let's take a peak. Five updates by me a couple weeks ago:

4/25: Last day at Disney. Kyle knew all the stuff to skip, and it's been short lines all weekend. News flash, we're are in a recession.
4/25: "Too much fun"
4/26: Dear Starbucks, if you can't understand 'Olin' don't ask for my name. No one is going to steal my coffee.
4/27: @rebeccaobley Impressive!
4/27: The dreaded unread message count: 421.

Not terrible, but not great (at least, my assessment.) There's a few potentially interesting things in there, but it seems we have what I call a medium (noun) problem. None of these updates have context, or if they have some, it's not complete. The first update needs more detail and explanation, and it would work better as a longer post. The second is something of an inside joke, and though I was compelled to put it up, it doesn't make sense to most people. The quotation marks help a little with that, I guess. The Starbucks comment stands alone fairly well, but could be another good post, as there is obviously a story involved. I shouldn't be so fleeting that I don't have time to share that, right? I'll discuss the Rebecca shout out in a moment. And by the last tweet, I'm obviously stretching. Poor me, I thought I needed to put something up. Not good, not good at all.

The fourth example shows that Facebook can compete with Twitter, and in a lot of places, outperform it considerably. The distinguishing element is the Facebook profile, which is customizable, dynamic, and contextual. Updates are listed in chronological order, but each can be commented on, and these comments are shown together on the site. Photos, videos, and web site links are embedded for context. Others' comments link to more profiles, which provide whatever information a user wants to provide. And most importantly, Facebook has considerable privacy controls, regardless of your opinion on how well they're implemented. In the tweet above, I could have posted on Rebecca's wall, right next to her update, so we aren't left scratching our heads now about what was so "impressive." In these areas, at least, Facebook is actually the clear winner.

Far more people are on Facebook than Twitter, especially in my social network. I'm inclined to think it'll stay that way, at least for awhile.

---

Diatribes aside, my thesis is this: I can "tweet" elsewhere, more eloquently and satisfactorily. Small update? Post a note on Facebook to my profile. Pictures, videos, or links? Facebook can accept those as well. But if that media is worth discussing, why not put a little something on the blog? All my posts don't need to be as long as this one, after all. Following friends? Facebook, and if I need to, I can add their Twitter updates to my Google Reader. The same for interesting people I'm not friends with. And if it's as mundane as the unread count in my inbox, maybe I should clean it up and move on, rather than waste time recording it.

It's really an admission that I don't think my life is that interesting. I certainly have moments, and those can (and sometimes should) be shared, but most of it is mediocre from an outsider's perspective. I enjoy reading about other people and what they do, especially if they are passionate about it. But my thoughts? When I'm feeling inspired, I'll come here or stop by Facebook. When I'm not, you might not see me online at all.

You might actually see me.

You Must Be At Least 23 Years Old to Enjoy the Park

I've finally recovered from my eight day Florida adventure, and returned to work. But in the land of full-time sun, I learned many things. Being within walking distance of a beach is absurdly nice. Having time to power through a whole book makes reading more fun. The Wii is an ultra-portable system when on vacation. And Disney World is built for adults.



Kyle and I visited the parks for three days, with the "Park Hopper" option on the tickets. This means you're a tram ride away from another experience, and we took full advantage of the privilege. For example, on day one, we spent the morning and most of the afternoon in Epcot, including Test Track, Soarin' and Mission: Space (yes, I was on the Green team.) Then we moved over to the Magic Kingdom, which featured the most kid-friendly attractions. We needed only a half-day to see the best parts, and then it was back to Epcot for the World Showcase in the evening. I didn't have to move the car. Nice.

Day two and three were spent mostly in Hollywood Studios (formerly MGM) and the Animal Kingdom. These two parks really had a lot to offer, with a bunch of roller coasters and safari-style animal adventures. Rock 'N' Roller Coaster and the Tower of Terror within 40 steps of each other? Nice. But really, what kid would enjoy the Tower? Would have freaked me out at a young age, and the child in tears next to me on the ride proved it. Meanwhile, the safari was tons of fun and felt a lot more authentic then a general visit to the zoo. I mean, take the picture below. It's made of real hippo, so you know it's good.

(I wrote rhino the first time. Hilarious.)



The magic in Disney World is the detail. Every ride has build up and back story built-in. Mission: Space is all about a mission to Mars, and every single element is well done. You press buttons in the cockpit and the ride responds. That's really great stuff, and helped me buy in and imagine being there. My favorite ride, Everest, has a long line. But in that line, you wander through a Yeti museum, with supposed proof of Yeti existence, and dare I say, dominance. (Name of a band: Yeti Dominance? Name of a DJ: DJ Yeti? I'm just saying...)

To summarize, I had an awesome time.



---

I really like the Marlins hat, by the way. It's too easy to cheer for the [World Champion] Phillies these days, so I'm going with a different NL team. Have to protect the scalp down there in Florida. At least, that's what I was told throughout the Florida trip:

"Sun safety is a way of life."

Look! I got a new (Media)Monkey!

First of all, who doesn't love a spider monkey? And a shocked one at that.

Now, for the real story, which is my near-perfect escape from the 920-pound software gorilla in the room, iTunes. Yes, that iTunes. The one that runs multiple applications in the background when it's not serving a purpose, the one that grinds 300 MB of RAM in a heartbeat on my PC, the one that doesn't use the standard ID3 tag structure, the one that works so much better on the Mac it frightens me. I simply needed the Windows iTunes experience to end.

"But Olin, there are a million media players out there. Just download another one and move on!"

Not so fast. I took the plunge on another Apple product. Seen one of these before?



That's an iPhone 3G. It's a truly great device and has replaced the need for me to carry a music player and phone in two different pockets. Awesome. But it only syncs with iTunes. So in order to get my music onto my phone, I had to suffer. If only I could break free from the ball and chain. J. River Media Center, for example, is a phenomenal program for Windows. It's iPhone compatibility is nonexistent.

Let's look at my list of prerequisites for media player bliss:

1. Quick
2. Customizable
3. Syncs with the iPhone
4. Manages large libraries well.
5. And Quick

And then there was MediaMonkey.



This is a fantastic piece of software for the amazing price of nothing. It does have a paid version, which adds a bunch of cool features, but the core functionality I needed came free. I can keep my library auto-updated with the contents of various folders (iTunes for Windows can't do this), runs with a small memory footprint, and has a wealth of skinning and customization features.

Here's the library view (picture taken from the 'Net, so it's not my library):



This program also provides the must-have iPhone syncing feature I've been looking for, with a catch. The program cannot handle video files at all. But, 97% of my iPhone media use is audio-only anyway, and MediaMonkey does podcast subscriptions as well. Here's what I get with MediaMonkey and the iPhone:

1. Music & Playlists
2. Podcast subscriptions
3. Ratings and play count
4. Applications, videos, and other iPhone features are left untouched by MediaMonkey.

#4 ensures that I can leave iTunes installed for the occasional video upload or firmware upgrade. But those things happen rarely. Yesterday marked a full week since I'd needed to open the memory hog. Great success.

You can download MediaMonkey here.

140-Character Coverage

Big changes were announced Tuesday (3/17) for the iPhone and iPod touch. New firmware is currently in beta for the devices that will bring a host of new features (link here). Copy/paste, MMS, A2DP, push notifications; these features all mean improved Apple products and continued development. I'm excited by the news, but the press conference wasn't particularly captivating, as many of the upgrades were predicted beforehand by insiders. The fascinating part was the media coverage itself. In short, Twitter is changing the news world, and quickly.

---

The announcement started at 1:00PM and, as expected, all the major websites and newspapers had tech reporters at the event. I'm partial to TechCrunch, so I went to their site to check out the news. They had a page up dedicated to the event that updated live. This wasn't a video feed; it was commentary submitted by their reporter that got posted immediately. It was riveting, no joke. The writer gave ongoing updates on the proceedings - "Event is about to start"..."Here comes the next speaker"..."New presentation is on the screen." More than that, though, were the updates on new features. A classic was "MMS SUPPORT!!!" - meaning multimedia text messaging was coming to the iPhone 3G.

I can't imagine what Walter Cronkite thinks of this. Essentially, I got the news about the new iPhone features through Twitter updates. Everything was reported in tiny chunks and often lacked proper punctuation. There was no analysis behind the fact-giving. The impact of the presentation was left for the viewer of the TechCrunch page to determine. This is an interesting idea, because in the past newspapers would report the facts, interview individuals related to the story, and give possible outcomes or predictors of the story going forward. Maybe the story was neutral, but thought had gone in to what was happening outside of the sensory experience. You didn't read "Forest Fire in Northern Iowa today", you read "Forest Fire in Northern Iowa today - officials are investigating the cause of the incident, and there looms a threat of more fires if the lack of rainfall continues." I'm not even sure you can fit what I just wrote in one Twitter message.

I think the transition we're experiencing away from the classic newspaper format has three facets. We have nearly global access to the Internet, and it has changed the way we think and act on a daily basis. This is the evolution of the technology that we've built over 25 years. It's natural to develop new levels of efficiency in technology and learn to produce things quicker and deliver it to a wider audience. And the proliferation of multimedia (radio, TV, VHS/DVD, streaming audio/video, etc.) has encouraged consumption of richer content. A video of breaking news can show a lot more about what's going on than a still picture, for example.

But there are many consumers of Twitter and similar services (including myself). We digest information on a daily basis that is watered down to a character limit that dwarfs screen sizes and column widths in newspapers and magazines. And not everyone has the same level of awareness or understands the impact of what they're reading. If I'm able to absorb the updates coming in about the iPhone, understand their impact on my usage of the device, and begin to make judgments on the relative usefulness of the features, I've actually worked my brain harder than if a reporter told me the announcements and their importance. But what if people stop synthesizing and evaluating information (and therefore forget about Bloom's taxonomy?) We could quickly devolve and forget how to think. We could absorb information continuously through mini-updates and always know exactly what was going on everywhere in the world. Except we'd never understand any of it. Scary stuff. The antidote for this degeneration is not clear. For now, people continue to adopt Twitter and it's virtual offspring without considering the consequences.

Of course, full disclosure is important.

You can find my Twitter page here.

Cleaning Up: Why I'm Leaving Last.FM

I've listened to over 9,000 songs and podcasts that've been scrobbled to Last.FM, a social music website. Scrobbling involves letting the Last.FM software record what music you've listened to and save it to a profile. I have stats going back through July '07, which is an impressive run. My tastes have improved significantly since I joined the service. I've really enjoyed my forays into new music, most of them courtesy of Patrick and other college friends. But those benefits come from listening to music, something that I (almost) never do on the Last.FM site itself. I listen on portable music players, my phone, my computer, my stereo. But if I don't listen to the web stations, what has recording all my listening habits actually given me?

The tagline for the website should provide a clue:



The defining feature of the service is providing music recommendations to its listeners. These recommendations are difficult to find with a recent site overhaul, but once you arrive at the right page, you can see artists that you should check out. You can also see what artists in your listening history are connected to the suggestions the site provides. But there are two major problems with this approach. The first is the size of my music library; in a word, enormous. Many of the recommended artists are in my library, and I just haven't gotten the chance to listen to them yet. This is personally embarrassing, as I've been working hard to get around to digital piles of old music. And secondly, the suggestions are often simply too simplistic, and there's a reason why I don't listen to the artist. The number of artists I've found through the site is in the single digits, because I've had some helpful music buffs around me.

The value of Last.FM is diminished, as the marquee feature has proved largely unhelpful. What else keeps me going? There is the "wow" factor of having access to your listening history, possibly as a procrastination tool. "Hey, I listened to a lot of Pinback last night" or "do I really like classical music this much?" Not a big reason to stay. There is also the fact that your listening profile can be made available to friends (of which I have two, Nick and Patrick, who also use the service.) So they can see what I've found entertaining lately. This is cool, but could be done fairly easily with an email or a blog post, and maybe it makes being friends too easy. Maybe I should have to nudge Nick to find out what's been playing on his Mac, rather than getting to spy for free.

This far in the analysis is where I've usually given up in the past. I've thought I might use the service more in the future, and I like sharing my music preferences with Nick and Patrick, so why not continue? But the truth is, maintaining the scrobbling can be tiresome (make sure to sync your phone at the right time, or it loses the data.) And my profile is viewable by anyone, not just my buddies on the service. Why should what I listen to in my apartment or on my iPod be public knowledge? Should I surrender privacy for no reason other than I've been doing it for awhile?

My conclusion is no, I shouldn't continue to publish the profile publicly. And without getting great recommendations from Last.FM, there is no reason to continue scrobbling. I'll just need to keep Patrick and Nick better informed. I'm not just reevaluating my use of Last.FM; it's time to shut off other web services if they aren't needed. Twitter? A lot of fun, and so far I'm okay with keeping it (plus it's not blocked at work.) Ping.FM? Completely unnecessary. Facebook? I'm committed to it as my single online social network. Can't say the same for FriendFeed or Gyminee. This blog? Also fun and giving me a different outlet for my thoughts. Google Reader, fantasy sports, news sites, and the list goes on.

There simply isn't any room for Last.FM.

Blame the Juice

Let me make one thing immediately clear.

I have never used any performance-enhancing substances.

Unless you count coffee.

Or Advil.

Or other painkillers after a few sports injuries.

Or chocolate milk. (It's really good for you.)

---

I have never used steroids of any kind, but I sympathize with other sports "users" because of the double standard surrounding their profession. The easiest comparison is between actors and athletes, since it's Oscar night and I'm in the mood. Both get paid ridiculously large amounts of money at the top, but have to struggle at the bottom (or simply have a day job) to follow their passion. Both participate in a spectacle, albeit either in a stadium or on the big screen. Both jobs are extremely competitive, and are driven in many cases on the whims of critics and the public. Both advertise. (My company sponsors a golfer - who knew?)

Here's the difference. People see an action movie from the 80's and they know everyone is on steroids. People find out Mark McGuire or Alex Rodriguez took steroids and believe they should be banned from baseball and the Hall of Fame.

Are you kidding? Why should players that reached the top of their game through cheating, lies, and manipulation not be considered kings of their sport? Actors and actresses that do the same are given the red carpet, not a grand jury investigation.

So, let's talk about a few counterarguments to my sympathetic position.

1. Steroids are illegal, and therefore athletes shouldn't use them. Anyone that does is a felon anyway.

This is a common point, and I concede if it's illegal people probably shouldn't be doing it. But athletes or actors caught with marijuana just get told to clean up. The best is alcohol abuse that leads to a crime. The minute a celebrity/athlete actually shows up at an AA meeting, they literally transform into Rosa gallica on the spot. Never mind if it's the only one they make it to that year.

2. The athlete's body is their temple. Using steroids to enhance their body is cheating.

There are so many problems with this position. Isn't an actor's body their temple as well? Shouldn't they be thrown out of the actor's guild for juicing? Doesn't happen, and we don't even hear about it as a possibility. What's the exact line on "steroids" anyway? Caffeine certainly works miracles in the morning for the entire office, yet it's not banned by every sport (maybe Cycling though, not sure.) And frankly, steroids didn't use to be against the rules in many leagues. Until there is specifically a rule against something, expect people to do anything to get ahead. That's called being a good worker, or boss, or power forward. It's also a lot like what college turns out to be for most of us. You don't cheat, but you bend and bend to do as well as you can. You study in groups, and try to get the homework rules changed so you can do that in groups too.

My point is, if you're (for example) Major League Baseball, you can make a rule against steroids, and then you can kick people out who break it. But until the day you have a rule (and not just an open letter, Selig), expect people are trying to get an advantage. You can't fault them for that. And frankly, these drugs put a professional athlete's body at risk (insert before and after on Bonds' head - you can tell). If someone chooses to accept that risk in their line of work, they pay for the consequences. But if it's not banned, it's not banned.

3. As soon as players take steroids, they have an advantage that players of the past didn't have.

Another cheating example. This is the historical argument, or as I'm now calling it, the Hank Aaron rebuttal. When someone says Barry Bonds is the best home run hitter of all time, you can bet an old guy around the corner will come running with a Hank Aaron rebuttal for you, as in "Hank Aaron didn't have anything to take, so he's still the home run king!"

We're all cheaters. We didn't get polio or chicken pox or malaria. Take sleeping pills, laxatives, anti-histamine blockers or viagra? You're a cheater compared to the old leagues of the 1890's. "RUB SOME DIRT ON IT!"

Technology has given every single one of us an advantage. We owe our lives to innovation that supports a growing population of billions of people on this Earth. It is absolutely ridiculous to keep a record book if certain medical advances invalidate it. People will get faster, stronger, and better over time. And we have to live with that, and remember all the great players (and actors) from the past. But they won't hit the most home runs or run the fastest mile because they didn't. The people with the technological advantage will do it more efficiently.

---

This post was sparked by the news that A-Rod was (is) a steroid user. I was extremely disappointed when I heard the news because he lied about his use with Katie Couric in '07. To clarify, his dishonesty is the source of my disappointment. If someone would simply tell the same story from the beginning, the entire country could get through this steroid mess. But instead, individuals are scared for their individual careers, won't open their individual mouths, and instead let a guy like A-Rod fall in the hopes that they won't. Except they will. In which case they helped no one, especially Alex since he had his chance to talk about the entire league, and instead tried to minimize it.

This is not one of those issues that I'm set in stone about, and I'd love to hear your thoughts. It simply gets me ramped up. It's entirely possible that I'm going to feel differently about baseball, sports in general, and the issue of steroids as this whole saga unfolds. I just hope the actual baseball season is decent this year; I need the MLB.TV subscription to be worth something.

Short but Sweet: New Domain!

Hey, this is just a notice that my site has been moved to my own domain name. Not surprisingly:

http://olinbg.com

(Don't bother with www, though it'll work if you do.)

Make sure to update links and/or Google Reader as the old site won't go directly here.



Also, a new post is coming this week...and it's time to talk sports. I wonder what it might be about?

Hint: Juice.