Geeks vs. Nerds from XKCD.com

There’s been a lot of debate over the years about who is a Geek, and who is a Nerd.  As a self-professing Nerd, I thought I’d try to settle the debate.

As I’ve come to understand it over the years, there’s one key difference which can enable you to quickly figure out whether the awkward, shy, and un-athletic individual standing in front of you is a Geek or a Nerd.  It all boils down to focus.

See, Geeks are usually defined by a category.  Someone can be labelled as a Mac Geek or a Windows Geek, a Star Wars Geek, a Star Trek Geek, a Music Geek, an Xbox Geek, a Nintendo Geek.  They specialize.  To put it more bluntly, they obsess.  Start up a conversation with a Geek on almost any subject, and you’ll be lucky to get them to say a few quiet words.  Find their specialty, however, and you’ll find yourself unable to get a word in edgewise as they launch in an hour-long diatribe on all sides of the chosen topic.  They don’t plan out their speeches, they just spend so much time talking about it, reading about it, posting vigorously online about it, that their talking points are ingrained in their minds.  They don’t just live and breath that topic, they exist in that world alone.

A Nerd, on the other hand, is knowledgeable about more subjects than you ever knew existed.  They can speak at length at just about any subject, and often will, if they get the chance.  This power often goes to their head, causing them to look down on “normal” people, as if realizing that their superior intellect makes them incapable of dealing intelligently with the “lower forms of life”.  Beware of suggesting that they might be incorrect, as they will launch into a lengthy defense of their point and attack on yours, including discussing why you are unable to even begin to understand the subject at hand, let alone the many other subjects they are experts on.  The best response to a Nerd is a well-timed “Mhmm, that’s interesting…” and slipping away to talk to someone else as soon as possible.

Now, there is a great deal of cross-over in these categories.  Nerds may specialize in a subject or two, crossing them over into Geek territory.  Of course, this would also mean that some Geeks can be knowledgeable about many subjects, putting them into Nerd territory.  There are also a variety of levels to each, ranging from the cave-dwelling Basement Geek and the 30-year old Nerd still living with their parents, to the Weekend Geek who plays World of Warcraft from 7:30 Friday night until 8:00 Monday morning but lives like a normal human being Monday through Friday, and the suave, sophisticated Nerds who use their superior intellect to attract the more intelligent species of female and recites poetry at the drop of a pin (no pocket protectors on these Nerds).  Some of either variety can pass themselves off as being perfectly sane, while others look more like Quasimodo and can’t leave their parents basement without a hood and cape, along with large sunglasses.

If you find yourself identifying with one of these labels, perhaps it’s time to get some thick glasses and a pocket protector, and proudly claim the label you choose.  Or, if you prefer, run screaming to your favorite psychiatrist and pour out your dark secret from the depths of your soul.  It’s ok, cry a little if you must.  At least now you know.

And knowing… is half the battle.

This represents a great opportunity for communities. However, I’ve noticed some people talking about how it would be great to have this as long as it doesn’t cost the community anything. I think this is the wrong approach to take. Read more to find out why.

Somewhere in the past, I recall a speaker on negotiation talking about 2 different investors building 2 different malls. One firm decided where they wanted their mall and announced their decision, then began trying to make all the deals needed. With huge amounts of will-power and effort, they managed to build most of their original plan, but way past deadline and way over-budget. The second firm selected several locations and said to the community leaders “we’re THINKING about building a mall here. Are you interested?”   When leaders who saw it as an opportunity for their community worked to HELP the mall-builders, this firm was able to build on-time and on-budget, and the community gained many new jobs for its people.

With that in mind, communities who see this fiber-network as a huge value-add SHOULD SPEND and COMPETE for it. In the end, Google might pay to build it, but there is a LOT more to it than buying miles of fiber lines and connecting them to the internet.  They will need, I’m sure,  to obtain office space, buy real estate, relocate existing Google employees, hire new Google employees, obtain many types of permits, obtain licenses, perhaps re-zone some places, corporate equipment, obtain corporate vehicles and more.

What will a chosen community GET for this? PLEASE comment below with your ideas of the benefits. I’m sure I will fall short. But plain and simple: when people can get more work done in the same number of hours per day, that makes them more EFFECTIVE and more EFFICIENT. It also gives them more work satisfaction and the company more PROFIT.

• A Google OFFICE would likely be opened in chosen communities to oversee both the construction portion of the project and the technology deployment. That means high-paying, high-technology jobs. Other tech-related jobs will likely spring up around these.
• TV and Film related work takes huge amounts of data. Orlando has a lot of such work. If OUR home-based businesses can produce, send and receive MORE, doesn’t that give our community an ADVANTAGE? And when you add the word “3D”, you’ve just DOUBLED the amount of data needed.
• “AVATAR” – oh yes, the biggest grossing major motion picture of all time. Would the NEXT director trying to make an “Avatar” pick companies where the whole area is built for transferring data between sub-contractors?
• Audio and video content on the internet in the form of “PodCasts” (or “NetCasts”) is booming on the internet. If OUR residents can build and deliver specialty talk shows and video productions more easily, that’s an ADVANTAGE.
• More and more people are working from home. GoogleFiber would give those workers MUCH more ability to work with large amounts of data from the main office or offices far away. It would give them MUCH more opportunity to PROVIDE data services with large amounts of data. I am such a self-employed person, but I also service companies whose employees work at home on weekends or in satellite offices. The boss may be at home on the weekend, but wants to look up something in the database at the office without having to drive in. However, the cable-modem is too slow for this to be very usable (yes it is, the technical reasons would be too hard to explain here.)
• For those not working at home, many are still working in satellite offices away from the main office where the big servers are, or in micro-offices. With better networks, our communities can get more work done in those offices.
• Businesses such as BlockBuster, NetFlix and iTunes are selling and renting movies over the internet. These movies are large in size. They are especially large if the movie is in Hi-Definition. If those companies can deliver MORE content to OUR citizens, our citizens will look like more DESIRABLE customers. Maybe those companies would locate an office in such a town. (More high-skilled jobs for our citizens.)
• Data services related to smart phones and devices like iPhones, iPads, iPod Touch, Palm Pre, Google Android phones, Blackberry, and so on are a developing industry. These industries employ software developers, video producers, and graphic artists (lots of apps need lots of catchy icons and logos.) All of these are trained and employed by Orlando-area schools and companies. (Full-Sail, DAVE school, UCF, Rollins, Valencia, SCC, local training companies and many more.)
• Speaking of our schools and colleges, can’t they recruit students and teachers more effectively if GoogleFiber is available?
• Technology firms – we can’t leave out all the networking, defense, simulation, and video game makers in the area. Won’t they have an easier time recruiting employees to move to a fiber community? Won’t their workers be more able to work at home? Won’t consulting firms be able to do more? (More tech firms = more jobs for our graduates and more internships for our students to gain experience.)
• Speaking of games, online gaming is a fast-growing industry. With the best networks right around OUR game companies, they can recruit top game-makers more easily. Not to mention our communities will have the best gaming experience, attracting more gamers to spend money. Some video game companies are investing in central servers that make VERY high resolution pictures of the game and ship each frame of the video across the network. If WE have the BEST network, who will they pick as the first customers? Where will they market first?
• Companies providing online backup services are growing fast. Others providing “Cloud” services want to replace desktop computer storage altogether. Both of these types of growing companies would look at our community as EXCELLENT customers with this kind of network. Perhaps they would establish local offices? If not, perhaps someone else will.
• Other factors you can consider: online meetings will function better with more bandwidth. People will spend less time traveling and more time working. Who needs to burn CDs when you can just send the data? (Less litter and pollution.) None of our workers will need to put a huge amount of data on a hard drive and drive it across town to the next part of the TV/Film/Audio/Graphics process. (Less time wasted, more work done, less traffic, less pollution, more efficiency.) Computer professionals can solve problems by remote more easily. Online Education can expand. Musicians and authors can work more quickly and easily and sell their products electronically.

By coincidence I recently listened to an I.T. Conversations podcast interview with attorney Jim Baller, founder of the US Broadband Coalition. They discussed the Coalition’s report on US Broadband Strategy. Among items they discussed were reasons behind successes and failures of municipal broadband efforts. If I recall correctly, they also discussed the benefits those communities gained.

And excerpt from the report:

A rapidly growing segment of the US economy is tied directly or indirectly to information and communications technologies. This includes industries that develop, deploy, finance, operate, and maintain communications networks and the equipment that runs them; industries that focus on devices that interconnect with the communications networks, including computers, Netbooks and PDAs; industries that develop, operate, and service the applications that run over the networks, including Google, Amazon, Flickr, Facebook or eBay, etc.; industries that conduct business of all kinds over the Internet, and so on.

With so MUCH to be gained from such a network, we have to realize there is a lot to LOSE by not spending to ensure we get it.

Links

• Googles Fiber Announcement and details: http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi/
• City could become Google test subject: http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2010/02/25/business/dpt-google022510.txt
• Broadband Coalition: http://www.bb4us.net/

I now think the question of ultimate success may come down to who can provide a better on-line marketplace for things that can be downloaded.  And that requires defining how to compare marketplaces, especially digital marketplaces for digital goods.

Some thoughts on a good marketplace:

- large base of suppliers to make the goods

- efficient transport of goods

- efficient & secure exchange of money for goods

- large base of consumers to buy the goods

- effective means for consumers to consume the goods (computer devices for digital goods)

- builds and retains high consumer and producer confidence and trust

A financial specialist can add a lot to the list, I’m sure.  And when I say “efficient”, I include quick, low-cost, and easy-to-use.

Did Apple succeed in an mp3 player market by competing better in all the same old ways?  Apple’s products cost MORE. They usually had less storage capacity. Apple actually delivered fewer features.  What Apple did have was a better marketplace for the digital goods that customers consumed with the Apple’s products.  (Example: 99 cents for the one song you wanted, not $18 for the whole CD, and you get it now, with one-click.)  Customers have shown us their opinion of that value proposition.

Did they succeed in cell phones by competing on the same terms as everyone else? The iPhone was expensive, even for a smart-phone. It did have that nifty voicemail trick to go right to the one you wanted.  And it was an iPod, albeit a low-capacity iPod.  But it had always-on access to the song marketplace and a need to make sound to announce calls.  It extended the marketplace to songs-as-ringtones and extended the sales opportunities to include the consumers’ musical whims. Need a song to fit the current mood?  Heard a cool song on the radio and want to buy it?  Apple made a deal with the trendy Starbucks company to allow their Macs and iPhones to make free wifi connections to iTunes and not only buy songs, but see a display that could let them know what song was playing in Starbucks at that moment.  The current-song feature no longer works, and apps can recognize music for you, but you can still connect to Apple’s marketplace for free in a Starbucks.  Starbucks still distributes free-iTunes-song-of-the-week cards.  Perhaps it is no coincidence that AT&T now powers Starbucks’ internet in place of T-Mobile.

Apple further extended their marketplace with big-name TV shows and Movies in conjunction with an iPod Video.  In another move, they extended their audio marketplace by adding audio-book and talk-show content from “Audible.com” This partner enjoys continued success and expansion of its product line. Inclusion of such extremely long audio content caused some problems in the iPod players, but Apple upgraded the software to fix them and customers continued to buy.

The NeXT extension to the marketplace: inclusion of software to subscribe to the new audio category called “Podcasts”.  Now large amounts of totally free audio programming is available to marketplace customers.  Most of these programs were shows with too narrow an audience for radio broadcasters, or were too time-sensitive for traditional physical distribution or were just experiments by enthusiasts.  But many podcasters have succeeded financially.  Some now have audiences that radio shows would envy greatly.  Since some podcasts send video, that expanded Apple’s video marketplace.  And all Apple did for these podcasters and consumers was make it easy to find, subscribe, download and listen..  The audience for podcasts exploded. The number of podcasts grew (and continues to grow). Audio professionals have a whole new industry. Apple never spent any money to distribute the shows.  Apple did introduce a means of putting images and chapter markers into audio shows. Now an Apple device can show a picture on the screen at the show’s direction. A consumer might see the topic of discussion. The chapter markers allow a consumer to jump around a long show more easily.   This was, in a way, a first test of doing large amounts of business with small producers.

Now consider Apple’s extension of the marketplace to include Apps for the iPhone. Apple reportedly gave up the deal that netted a percentage of AT&T’s large monthly fees for iPhone data service. Apple opted instead for control of the App sales in their marketplace instead.   This marketplace has new wrinkles: a very large number of very small producers making very large numbers of very small transactions.  It started out slowly and had a lot of growing pains, but Apple basically built a means of making a large number of deals with a large number of small developers to sell their low-priced apps for a 30/70 split. Unlike the free podcasts, Apple helps deliver the free apps to marketplace customers.

Putting aside the gold-rush urban legends, the real question is “did those producers find the marketplace a good deal?”  App developers chafe at some of Apple’s rules and restrictions.  But do many profit well? Even after Apple takes 30%?   Do customers do well?  Are they paying more or less for the goods they buy? Do they get more value or less value?  Does the system build and retain trust of both?  The answer is apparently “Yes”.   But consider this: Apple does not dictate price in the App marketplace.  And yet the prices have continually gravitated toward the minimum of 99 cents.

An upcoming question: If a similar marketplace is created for book authors and musicians, would they prefer it over traditional publishing/distribution companies?  (Some books are already sold on the App Store as Apps.) Maybe not for the authors of books with large mainstream audiences.  But what about all the others?  The books that would barely rate a “yawn…OK” from a traditional publisher?  Books with a niche market?  Books that are enjoyed, or are good references, but not convenient to keep around in paper?  (High School and college book-bags can get really heavy.)

For producers of any kind, 70/30  may look a lot better when you recall that transaction and distribution costs comes from Apple’s 30% (and the $100 annual fee), not the producer’s 70%.  For small producers, the work Apple does for the money may be indispensable. Recreating the infrastructure, marketing and financial deals Apple has would be impossible.  And thousands of very small modest marketplaces are not as interesting as one big, really good marketplace.  And who makes things easier to use than Apple?  Also,  Apple actively markets the devices and even picks some Apps for inclusion in their TV commercials.  I’m told those lucky apps gain large sales, but none of them had any influence in their selection.  (Agreeing to let them do this is part of the contract to get a developer account.)

Its possible there is still much for the world to learn about building and running a successful digital marketplace. Most business practices are based in lessons from producing, delivering and selling  physical goods. Still, the trust and confidence issues may prove to be the biggest frontier.  Can producers trust the marketplace?  Will Apple raise their cut? Will Apple make restrictions that are too tight? Will producers be put out of business by out-of-control copying?  Can consumers trust it? Are they safe from rogue producers?  Will their purchases be worthless if something happens to Apple, AT&T or the producer or the deals between them?  Will the purchase be worthless if a particular device is no longer available or a system upgrade is incompatible, or a new device takes over?  Will Apple or the producer simply decide to take it back? (Remember Amazon’s “1984″ take-back from Kindles?  Perhaps this is why DRM-free music sells better?)

To get back to the iPad:  while it is new and unproven,  it ships with a considerable, ready marketplace. It does something to expand that marketplace by being a consumption device with more screen size and cpu power.  It expands the ability to consume the goods. Its connectivity will make the opportunity for sales larger by making the marketplace available at the consumers’ whim (heard that song in the restaurant, bought it;  thought there might be an App for that, bought two; didn’t have to remember to find it on the home computer later on.)  Indeed, the connectivity and power mean that a separate computer is not needed to access the marketplace. Access to the marketplace is easier and cheaper than ever since setup for 3G internet access can be accomplished on the device itself, requiring no long-term contracts for subsidies, no intervention or assistance from cell-savvy personnel,  no activation with a desktop computer (like EVDO modems). AT&T might opt to sell them with subsidies and contracts, but options are now available.

An interesting twist on consumer trust and value propositions in a digital marketplace: ownership is not necessarily tied to possession of a physical thing.  If someone steals your iPod, you still “own” all the goods you’ve purchased (Apps, songs, books).  You can put them right back into use for the cost of another device. You can’t say that for a CD in a CD-player.  And really, which investment is usually bigger? The songs or the player?  The computer or the software?  The games or the game system?

Chas

At this writing I haven’t had a chance to view the video of the keynote yet, but I’ve heard the audio and read all the news sites and the many Mac forums I monitor.

The reaction, at least initially, reminds me a whole lot of what we got from this same community regarding the iPod at the time of its introduction. Which is to say “mixed opinion,” followed by historical revisionism as the mainstream decided (slowly) that it was actually a pretty awesome product.

As I listened and read, I too had a mixed opinion about this thing: I liked many of the ideas, but some things seemed to be missing, and I wasn’t sure that there was a place in my power-user’s life for one. I did think and do think that this new product passes the “Grandma” test in a whole new way and may well prove to be a big hit with normal people, book lovers and educators. It may even be revolutionary (starting with killing off the Kindle, the Nook and so on — what staggeringly awkward and primitive failures of imagination those products look like now).

Then I thought about it some more. Second impression — oh dear, I may just have to give Apple even more of my money.

As I’ve gotten busier, I have allowed all my magazine subs — including some of the Mac mags I used to write for — to disappear. I barely read magazines anymore, despite enjoying them. Ditto for newspapers. The iPad would make this much easier for me to do, particularly when I’m lounging in a coffeeshop/airport (or at home for that matter!). If I had spare cash, I’d be spending it on Starbucks stock (or any other chain that is also an AT&T wifi hotspot) — I think business will be booming in a few months. Imagine being able to buy any magazine every published — even back issues — for a modest price and start reading them instantly. For me, at least, the doctor’s office will never be the same again.

If the AppleTV is the “den” Mac, and the MacBook/MBP is the “on the go” Mac, I think the iPad may be the “La-Z-Boy” Mac. I can certainly see myself enjoying it greatly in such a chair.

I’ve also been enjoying Classics on the iPhone, but have been very hesitant to get into eBooks properly. My wife has a Kindle, and it’s … okay . The iPad, on the other hand, has real potential for eBooks (particularly that they are using the ePub format — very smart), magazines, comic books (sorry, graphic novels), and even other written formats. Finally, I can invest some time and money into Canadian mags I’ve been wanting to check out!

So yes, I think this will inject new life into newspaper and magazine-type publications, and open the field to new voices (desperately needed, particularly on the political and investigative journalism fronts). That part, I think, I think will be revolutionary. Heck, its only been out a few hours and its already changed the eBook publishing industry, particularly when it comes to pricing.

A second example: I am typing this to you on an extended keypad attached to my BlackBook. Some years ago, I got tired of trying to keep a laptop and a desktop in sync, since I give a lot of public presentations. So I went all-laptop, and built myself a little base station here at home that the laptop plugs into. So now I carry a laptop with me on every airplane trip, carry the laptop on every presentation (and hope there’s working wifi where I’m going), carry the laptop on the ferry rides to Seattle or Vancouver. The iPhone has turned out to be quite good in a lot of these situations, allowing me on occasion to go without the laptop, but it’s never been sufficient for me to leave the laptop behind when I had any real work to do — particularly since the main reason I travel is to do presentations, which like the lackadaisical schoolboy I used to be, often get, er, “revised” on the way to the gig.

The iPad + iWork changes that very significantly in several ways:

• I can do “real work” on an iPad, whereas on an iPhone that’s all but impossible. Porting iWork over to the iPad was a stroke of serious genius.
• The 3G option makes it possible for me to have internet almost anywhere, which will be a godsend to my presentations when wifi isn’t available. The minute I heard you could hook an iPad to a projector, I was almost totally sold. This is a game-changer for road warriors, educators, and maybe even students.
• The greatly increased battery life means I can be away from my “base station” for a lot longer, but do almost everything I need to (including Back to My Mac if I need it). I don’t need to lug a “real computer” around with me at all anymore. My “real computer” can stay at the house, which means I can get a better/more powerful “real computer.”
• 9.7″ screen = easier on my aging eyes. There, I said it.
• Bigger than an iPhone, but still able to be used usefully in coach seating. Try that with a regular laptop. HAH!
• As Steve said (and I fully concur) … beats the crap out of a netbook for most things. Amen.
• Assuming (hehheh) that Rogers (our Canadian primary 3G provider) goes along with some similar pricing for an unlimited data plan a la AT&T for the thing … I think that will cause a revolution in its own right.

The Apple iPad

So, whereas yesterday I had been thinking about whether I wanted to finally upgrade to a 13″ or 15″ MBP, today I’m thinking my next computer(s) will be a 27″ iMac at home (I have really been wanting one, but couldn’t justify it because of my need to do presentations) and an iPad for the road. Much easier to sync, particularly for me as a MobileMe member. Much lighter. Does pretty much 100% of the things I would want to do on the road. I can have 3G when I need it, for a very reasonable price, and not pay for it when I don’t need it. No contracts, no ongoing mandatory expense. Fantastic battery life. Beautiful LED backlit IPS screen. Large (albeit virtual) keyboard. All my favourite iPhone apps.

There are a few other things I could have wished for, and the first one that came to my mind was a mic. Turns out it has one, along with speakers (just wasn’t mentioned in the keynote for some reason). This means I can use Skype. With Bluetooth, even. Sold!

I would have paid extra for a model with an iSight in it, and an iChat app. It would have been really nice if it had at least one in-built USB port instead of making us buy and use a little dongle, but OTOH now that functionality will (probably) be available to the iPhone/iPod Touch as well, which opens up all kinds of interesting possibilities.

So the thing’s not perfect. But it’s highly, highly intriguing. I think I’ve found a place for it in my life, mostly near the couch.

Still, I have little doubt that third-parties will plug the little gaps in short order, and as Jonny Ive said “there’s no wrong way to hold it,” so using it “upside down” with a webcam attached to the dock port could be huge. My wife will never get me lost again — I could have a GPS app on this thing!*

*It is, of course, always my wife’s fault if we get lost.

Obviously this is just my life and YMMV, but I certainly predict this to be a big hit (though I suspect there will be a slow start till the accessories and apps are fully built up. That’s okay, though — the iPod had a slow start too) and I do think it will change the world, at least a little. I think it will kill the Kindle/Nook/etc  (which may have the unanticipated effect of further hurting libraries), and I think it will revitalise the magazine/graphic novel and newspaper publishing companies, take e-reading mainstream and continue to solidify Apple’s grip on the media world, which has so far been pretty mutually beneficial (but I can see where some people would be concerned about that).

I think it will largely kill netbooks that aspire to be anything more than bargain-basement Microsoft Office machines. After today, they finally look like what they really are — toys.

Steve + Tablets

On the other hand, I think seniors and newbies and switchers — and heck, most non-nerds — would be very well-advised to give the iPad a test drive as soon as possible. I think this is exactly the right amount of computer for the average person, reformulated in a way that drops some of the barriers and makes learning it much easier. And it’s a pretty fine supplement to a “real” computer even for geeks (at least, this geek).

Finally, I think the iPad will draw netbook owners who want something more, tablet owners (particularly artists) who want it done right, and adults who would have otherwise bought an iPod Touch (which is now pretty much a kid’s device). If Apple had offered a nice set of bluetooth headphones (and the aforementioned webcam) I think they would have made it just about perfect.

I’m sure I’ll have more to say about this later, but those are my initial thoughts.