Search This Site
Silicon Valley veteran doing Technical Community Management. Photographer with a strong interest in birds, wildlife and nature who is exploring the Western states and working to tell you the stories of the special places I've found.
Author and Blogger. They are not the same thing. Sports occasionally spoken here, especially hockey. Veteran of Sun, Apple, Palm, HP and now Infoblox, plus some you've never heard of. They didn't kill me, they made me better.
Person with opinions, and not afraid to share them. Debate team in high school and college; bet that's a surprise.
You should click on this. Really.
We pay for this site thanks to our sponsors. If you found this page interesting, we ask that you consider clicking through this ad to amazon.com and buying yourself something. It costs you nothing, but Amazon will pay me some money when you buy through this link.
That helps me keep this site free for all to use, and helps fund the time it takes to write and maintain the site. Without the kind people who buy things through my sponsors, this site wouldn't exist. You were going to buy that thing anyway, so why not buy it and help us keep the site up and running and without those nasty ads that get in your face when you go to some of the other sites
More to Read
- Some Thoughts on Lightroom Keywords
- How not to be a doofus with a camera
- Beyond 'Vacation Snaps'
- A teachable moment (or why I love birding, even when I make a fool of myself)
- Sherman, set the wayback machine to…
- An audience of one....
- Talking about 'Stuff'
- What I do for a living…
- 50 reasons Why I Haven’t Been Blogging
Want more? Try this list...
New on the Blog
- Hugh Daniel Memorial info
- Flag Day
- That was Steve, This is Now. And We’re Just Getting Started
- Tales to Inspire A New Generation of Developers
- 2013 Playoffs, stanley cup finals edition
- Calaveras Bald Eagle Nest 2013
- A quick anecdote about life at Palm…
- It was four years ago today….
- Quick note for folks who know Hugh Daniel
- Getting started in bird photography: Choose Your Weapons
Rent Gear at Borrowlenses
Don't buy that gear before trying it out! Renting a lens you're considering buying is a great investment in saving yourself from buyer's remorse!
And if it's a piece or gear you aren't going to use constantly, renting it when you need it is a great way to save money, and I highly recommend Borrowlenses as a place to rent high quality, well-maintained gear.
Yearly Archives: 2006
Explain to us again, why the NHL can’t return to Canada?
A few weeks ago I put forward my frequently espoused theory that the NHL could do a lot worse than to put a few more franchises back into Canada. For my efforts I received a few letters and comments suggesting that Canadians whine too much about getting back into the game so to speak.
Let me just say this upfront: I don’t think moving a team or two back to canada is a bad thing. But there are problems. the three most reasonable candidates — Winnipeg, Hamilton and Quebec City — all have problems.
Hamilton doesn’t have an arena that can handle the NHL without significant update. Ditto Winnipeg. both need upgrades. Quebec City — simply needs a new building. Is any of this being planned? Not that I can find. So right up front, is there any place willing to commit $40-50 million and two years of construction to bring a team back? Not that I can find.
Well, Balsillie seemed to be, but the league threw that out. And HIS idea had problems, namely the the Maple Leafs clearly didn’t want to share its fan base with anyone else.
To be honest — the place best suited for another NHL team would be: Toronto, where if you look at the population size and the ticket prices, it clearly has the demand to support another team.
Personally, I think Winnipeg is the best shot for a new team; it’s got a building taht could be upgraded to NHL capability. When they LEFT, they were *only* losing about $10m a year ($C), at a time when US-Canada currency discrepancies were making life miserable for all Canadian teams, and when there was no revenue sharing. If a team existed in Winnipeg today, with revenue sharing, it would probably be supportable.
But let’s throw some facts into this argument and see what happens.
Attendance for Winnipeg, 1989-1995: 13,106, 12,931, 12,931, 13,550, 13,297, 13,013, 11,316
Attendance for Quebec, 1989-1994: 15,080, 14,188, 13,666, 14,981, 14,614, 14,395
Attendance for Phoenix, 2001-2005: 13,161, 13,229, 15,469, 15,582
Attendance for Colorado, 2001-2005: 18,007, 18,007, 18,007, 18,007
And here’s the problem — the team that used to be the Jets, that everyone loves to talk about how badly they’re doing down in Arizona attendance-wise, they’re still drawing better than they did in Winnipeg. Please don’t tell me about the “two for one” and freebies, unless you can prove that these things magically stop happening north of the border. And frankly, having been a beneficiary of comps in Vancouver, I think it’s safe to say I know it happens up there, too.
He took a snapshot of one day in November which saw a number of American teams play in front of what can only be called embarrassing numbers. Crowds dropping below 11,000 per game, maybe even less when you don’t count the papered houses.
Snapshots, however, are a rotten way to judge this. They don’t take into consideration short-term issues like weather, and frankly, ignore the reality that — gasp — a bad team draws badly.
Campbell has provided a scratch sheet of sorts, similar to the attendance tracking I did as kid as I watched the NHL and WHA stumble their way through season after season of declining and embarrassing attendance returns. He paints a picture of a league very much in denial and soon to be very much in trouble.
Sorry, I don’t agree.
When you look at the waiting lists for tickets in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto (only Ottawa seems content to be a walk up city) you quickly realize that the NHL is a tale of two leagues, one a passionate relationship between fans and team, the other an indifferent glance by a less than interested bystander.
Vancouver, since 1989, has varied from a low of 14,000 a game to a high of over 18,000. Calgary in the late 80′s and early 90′s was averaging close to 20k. By 1999 that was down to 15K a game, and it didn’t really recover until 2005. Edmonton started the 90′s drawing 17,000 a game, and by 1995, was down under 13,000, then recovered back to 16K.
The excuses are many why the NHL can’t succeed in the likes of Winnipeg, Hamilton or Quebec City, but one has to wonder how things could be any worse than the current problems of the southern outposts and the formerly showcase cities of Chicago, Long Island and St. Louis.
You have just answered your own question. NOTHING will save a team from bad management. A poorly playing team draws well. A team with management that doesn’t care and doesn’t spend, or spends badly, will draw badly. Nothing the league does will solve that problem FOR THE TEAM. That’s why looking at St. Louis today in the tunnel vision of this season means nothing; yeah, attendance sucks — and you have a team where the old management did basically nothing for years waiting for a new owner, and missed the playoffs after 25 years of going to post-season (and exiting in the first round….); and now, you have a team with a new owner who had to patch it together from spare parts, and it shows; and the fans in St. Louis have responded to the decay by — gasp — staying home. But as recently as 2003, the Blues were drawing 18,000, and were for 20 years consistently in the top five or six in average attendance in the league for the last 20 years. And because they’ve had a two year drop in attendance, suddenly they’re not a hockey town and ought to move?
Bull. they’re a bad team because the old owners let them wither, and the new owenrs haven’t had time to fix the rot. And last year, when the rot really set in, tehy still drew 14,000 a game. More than any of the last six years the Jets drew. ahem.
Now, the Blackhawks are another matter. A team that in the 90′s consistently drew 17,000 and upwards of 20K when the new arena opened, for the last six years lucky to see 15K, and been trending downward to 13K. Why? bad ownership — the Al Davis of hockey. The teams have sucked, the GMs and coaches picked more for loyalty than talent, and the players for being inexpensive more than good. And the fans have responded — by staying away. Of course, the “bad” attendance in Chicago still outdraws Winnipeg’s last years, although I’m convinced the Blackhawks will fix that soon and drop down into the 12K range in the next year or so.
15,000 in Winnipeg or Le Ville du Quebec surely must trump 1,500 on a November night in St. Louis, no matter what accounting guidelines you might be using.
except, of course, you never DID draw 15K in Winnipeg. and you DID in Quebec, but the building got old and nobody wanted to build a new one. They still haven’t.
Read the Campbell article below, it’s an eye opener and should provide a fair amount of ammunition for those that believe the NHL needs Canada a hell of a lot more than Canada needs the NHL!
I’m sorry, the campbell article is a crock. The numbers don’t stand up.
He forgets that it wasn’t too long ago that both Calgary and Edmonton were doing so poorly financially that they were both considered candidates for moving. That Vancouver was struggling, too.
right now, the canadian teams are drawing well — because the canadian teams are PLAYING well. But they aren’t immune to slumps, and with those slumps come drops in attendance (except in Toronto and Montreal, where the demand is so strong they could legitimately field second teams, and because they don’t, people will grab tickets to BAD teams and BAD games because they’re the only tickets available). But what about when the teams go mediocre again? And they will?
What are the worst draws in the NHL this season? Probably not what you think:
26 Chicago (13283)
27 Washington (13130)
28 New Jersey (12,991)
29 Islanders (11714)
30 st. Louis (11,312)
funny thing is, go back to 2000-2001, and only the Islanders were in the bottom 5. chicago was 24th, Washington 21st, New Jersey 19th, and the Blue 4th.
The “hockey doesn’t belong here” crowd favorite whipping boys
Phoenix (14K, 24th)
Anaheim (15,5K, 21st)
Atlanta (15,9K, 19h)
columbus (16.4K, 17th)
Carolina (17,3K, 15th)
Which, I’ll note, every one of those teams outdraws what Winnipeg drew, and all but Phoenix are consistently outdrawing the last years of Quebec City. For all people gripe about the Hartford to Carolina move, Hartford in it’s last 8 years NEVER drew more than 13.7K. Since moving to its new building, the Hurricane have averaged better attendance than it did in Carolina, and only once in the last four years has it averaged under 15K (and that year was the year before the lockou when lots of us hockey fans tuned out and watched NASCAR or something else, no?) — so they’re averaging 2000/game MORE than the best year Harftord can muster.
My point here?
There’s no magic formula. there’s lots of “mystical golden age memories” that don’t hold up to the light of day or the facts of reality; Of the five teams in Canada, three of them are accepting revenue sharing to get by; there’s no reason to believe that a new team in Quebec City or Winnipeg would be any different — so why should the league encourage moving a team to a place where it knows it’ll have to subsidize it? I think, with revenue sharing, that Winnipeg is viable — but does it make sense to move to a place where you know subsidies are required? Isn’t it better to look for a place that can be profitable?
If you want to look at teams that OUGHT to be moved — it’s not Atlanta, or Columbus. It’s Boston, which has a new building but ahs consistently shown attendance in the bottom ten the last six or more years, and Chicago (ditto), and the Islanders (who have been trying to get a new building for ever) and Pittsburgh (ditto). And unfortunately, you can’t tell me those aren’t hockey cities, especially given Chicago and boston are both an original six team.
So we can toss out the “hockey doesn’t work in southern states” argument, because Dallas and Tampa and LA and Anaheim shows that it DOES — when you have a good team that’s well run and marketed properly. Even Phoenix is showing improvement in the new building, but what it really needs is to win hockey games.
Instead, the teams that have struggled consistently are teams that haven’t succeeded on the ice — Chicago and Boston — or have been in sucky buildings — New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Islanders. Boston has finally revamped management (enough? we’ll see), and Jersey has a new building planned, and the Islanders have one on paper (finally), and Pittsburgh finally has permission to find one.
And chicago? oh, feel sorry for Hawks fans. It’s a long, long winter. again.
The NHL’s number one goal right now should be to convince Wirtz to sell to new ownership that doesn’t include any of that family. Not that it’ll happen.
Does the league have problems? Yes. But ti’s funny — if you compare the “problem children” five years ago with now, there are very few names in common (and the ones that are, most have plans to solve the problems, like Jersey does). Los Angeles and Anaheim are still drawing a combined 31K a game, not exactly chopped liver.
Frankly, the only team I’m worried about is Nashville. They started at 17K, dropped to 14K, dipped to 13K for a bit, and back up to 14K, but they don’t seem to be driving improved attendance. If you want to look at moving a team — they seem a legitimate candidate. Atlanta’s grown attendance to 15,5, Florida’s consistently around 16K, Tampa’s up over 20,5, Columbus around 17K.
Someone please tell my why a team drawing 12k-16K in the states ought to be sent back to Canada. Especially when, if you look at the facts, the best a place like Winnipeg could do was 13K — at a time it was actively trying to save the team.
Maybe, just maybe, the reason the NHL isn’t considering Canada is that they have to actually pay the bills, where reporters and bloggers only have to dream the possibilities. But in the stark light of day (and facts), Canada just doesn’t seem like a good deal (well, I’d put a team in Kingston, or 2nd teams in Toronto and Montreal, but that’s not what most “home to canada” folks are talking about….)
Reality is, maybe the NHL isn’t as stupid as some of the critics want folks to believe….
“It goes up and down from one thing to another,” [Blackhawks assistant GM Rick] Dudley said. “You take into consideration (travel) expenses. Then we say that is not good enough – we want rivalries. Then we say we want Ovechkin and Crosby coming into our buildings. Everyone has a different agenda. At some point, you have to think, `What is best for the game?’ “
What’s best for the game: a schedule that makes the fans happy, that encourages interesting rivalries and makes sure the best teams play each other so they can be given high profile on television, and which creates as much of a balance to the schedule as you can so that each team faces the same strength of schedule.
None of those things, IMHO, can be done within the context of the current unbalanced schedules. Basically, half the teams in the league won’t see any of the hot players this year, won’t see most of the original six teams, won’t see the canadian teams. The schedule also gives some teams (notably Rangers, Devils and Islanders) much softer travel schedules than others. While you can’t even out the travel schedule without a committment to make it equally painful for all (not a good idea), let’s not pretend that the current schedule is great for ALL teams. It’s (maybe) somewhat better for a team like Vancouver — and a cakewalk for the Rangers, who only leave their timezone once in the season (by my check of the schedule). The rationalization that this schedule improves travel for the teams is in fact a BAD rationalization, because travel is still painful for some teams, and it just increases the unfairness of the schedule for a team like the Kings or Canucks compared to the Rangers or Devils or Boston. Better all teams take some more travel pain, if it means the difference between the “easy travel” team and the “bad travel” team is narrower.
So once again, we get back to a couple of realities: the only way you can be fair to fans is to make sure teams are in their buildings once a year — because some of those fans you’re trying to get into San Jose are in fact toronto fans, or Philly fans, or Detroit fans, or St. Louis fans, people who’ve relocated, or who’s fam,ily brought them up as fans of a specific team. And no unbalanced schedule is fair to those fans, and eight games against Anaheim won’t get a Toronto fan into San Jose Arena — unless, of course, ?Anaheim signs Doug Gilmour.
Versus can’t schedule a game like Washington/Sharks (which might be a fun game!) if they don’t play. Or Anaheim/Rangers. or Anaheim/Pittsburgh this year — wouldn’t you want to see how Pronger and Niedermeyer could do against Crosby and company? I would. but it wno’t happen…
And taht’s the ultimate failure of the current schedule…. it makes sure there is NO CHANCE of interesting games happen, in favor of trying to build artificial rivalries through playing teams until you’re sick of seeing them. and while eight games between San jose and Anaheim is going to be an interesting series, how does that make people spending eight games watching Blackhawks/blues or Coyotes/Wild feel?
okay, that sucked. well, the sharks did, for about two periods. Phoned in — completely phoned it in — in the first, which more or less made it a fair fight, and got stupid and scrambly in the third, allowing a goal with 40 seconds less to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and to allow the dreaded Red Wings to take 4th in the league.
the sharks fully deserved the loss. cheechoo was a disaster tonight. After one particularly painful shift in the 2nd, even Coach Wilson noticed, and the kid sat for the next nine minutes, finishing up the 2nd with 2 short shifts. he didn’t play the first 7 minutes of the 3rd, skated one very short shift (and changed early compared to his linemates) and then played sparingly the rest of the night.
What woke the team up was when Grier got moved into Cheechoo’s spot on the Thornton line and banged some guys. Curtis Brown took that spot the next time, and it led to a goal. After that, the legs were better and the energy level went positive, and the Coyotes simply tried to hang on. Unfortunately, the Sharks didn’t play well enough to put the game away, and handed it back late for the Coyote win (give the Coyotes full credit for not giving up and TRYING. But teh sharks sleepwalking merely made it more or less an even game….)
A few things crystalized tonight, watching them play.
First: Cheechoo just isn’t skating well. He’s slow, he’s not moving his feet, he’s peripheral, he’s static. I’m not sure if he’s hurt, or simply in a nasty funk, but either way, get him off the Thornton line. What seemed to get Cheech going a bit a few weeks ago was living on the third line. Make it so, and whenever he takes a shift and doesn’t move his feet, sit him. It worked tonight, he had some good shifts with hard work — but nothing sustained. He’s not a top-6 forward right now, others deserve time with Big and Little Joe more. give it to them.
Second, whatever you do, skate thornton with either Grier, Curtis Brown, or Mark Smith. Brown seems the best match, but the energy/mucking guy makes a huge difference. Thornton was effective with either MIchalek or Pavelich on wing tonight — when one of those three was the other wing. Just do it.
Third, there’s a chemistry thing going on. Seems silly to say with a team 5th best record in the league — but it keeps playing down to the level of the opponent, and guys sleepwalk and phone in shifts. It used to be Scott Parker’s job in the locker room to “talk” to guys who do that, but with him not in the lineup, the “you will NOT do that to your teammates” in your face guy seems missing, and team goes soft and inconsistent. Don’t think this is an indictment of Marleau as captain, that’s not the role I’m thinking about. This is more of a seargent-at-arms role. I’m wondering if McLaren has been doing some of that — but he’s been out, too.
the talk down in 127 tonight was about trades — and a growing thought one might be useful here. One focus was on lack of scoring from the blueline (not long before Vlasic scored his second. Hard to score with just forwards causing pressure, and the offensive-potential blueliners (Errhoff, Vlasic, Carle) have been pretty quiet. Good defense, no offense. I think it may be a true thing.
the deal that got floated in the section was with Tampa: Mark Denis and Dan Boyle for Nabokov, Errhoff and someone like Rissmiller. It’s actually the kind of trade that serves both teams pretty well, IMHO. I’d seriously consider it….
Anyway, Saturday a rerun, only in Phoenix. We’ll see if the team shows up, or sleeps in again… gah.
The Anaheim Ducks 4-3 win over the San Jose Sharks on Tuesday night had all the makings of a heavyweight prize fight. The Sharks avenged a 5-0 loss in Anaheim on November 21st with a come from behind 4-3 win in San Jose a week before Christmas.
Both teams were confident, looking to dictate the physical play early, and send a message to the rest of the league in the process.
Boy, the alarm goes off at 6AM, which makes it hard to write about a game immediately afterward. Makes life interesting some days (especially when I stay up too late the night before…)
So I’ll let the good folks at Sharkspage talk about the game, and only make a few extra comments:
The first period was some of the fastest, most intense, highest tempo, DAMN GOOD hockey I’ve seen, period. anywhere, any year. Almost no whistles, and both teams played exceptional.
Nabokov had a weak game. Unfortunately, he’s had just enough of those to make me worry — and he simply CAN’T do it against the ducks. He’s a damn good goalie, but if I had a crunch game, Toskala would be in goal. If that pisses off Nabokov, well, two soft goals against the Ducks made a winnable game into a loss. Stop giving up weak goals, Nabby. Or last night, you were forgiven for the first one by me with the saves right at the end of the first period — unfortunately, that wasn’t good enough.
The Sharks missed McLaren last night; the team D is fine when both McLaren and Hannan are in the game, but when one is out, it stretches the team’s defense thing. major props to the rest of the defense for stepping it up (especially Gorges, who had what I felt was his best game of the season) — but it wasn’t quite enough against the Ducks. Again, a winnable game that was lost. This was the second key to the loss.
third key to the loss: the Sharks legs looked tired in the third; not by a lot, but by enough. the Ducks seemed to be a better conditioned team, and when both teams simply tried to skate the other out of the building, the Ducks seemed to have slightly better reserves late in the game.
three games in, Ducks lead the series 2-1. I have to say, right now, that the Ducks are the better team. Not by much, but you can’t squint at this and call it a tie any longer. the better team IS winning. I wouldn’t want to see the Sharks and Ducks in a playoff series, I don’t think the Sharks can do it.
I’m not sure what the answer is, either. another veteran blueliner — a good, legitimate one — might help, but I’m not sure that’s what the Sharks need to win 3 of the next five games against the Ducks.
In fact, I don’t think I’d change anything, unless the “right” deal for a goaltender arrived with the proper serving of good skating talent in return. It may just be that the Ducks (barring injuries) are going to be the better team this year.
(quick note: Pavelski was told to get a room and a real number — to nobody’s surprise, he’s not going back to the AHL, and he’s now wearing #8, last worn by Teemu Selanne. Eventually, one has to guess the mystical magical groin injury that keeps putting Crowe on the IR will heal and he’ll head down….
“The big thing Rory, if you’re watching, they’re not laughing with you, they’re laughing at you,” said Cherry.
Cherry’s co-host Ron MacLean defended the campaign, saying it made for a cute story. He said fans are simply voicing their appreciation for Fitzpatrick, a concept Cherry strongly refuted.
“They never saw him play, how could they say he’s an all-star?” asked Cherry.
One of the things really pissing me off right now — the smug self-righteousness of the media ripping on the fans over selections of the all-star game. I feel bad for Rory Fitzpatrick. It’s not exactly like he asked for this. Some fans did this FOR him, or perhaps TO him, and yet — Fitzpatrick’s taking the largest load of crap from the “we’re the experts, and you folks are idiots” crowd.
Let me ask Don Cherry a question? Given the NHL lets fans vote for both Eastern AND Western conferences, how many games do you think the typical New York Rangers fan has seen Joe Thornton play this season before casing a ballot for him? For that matter, how many games has CHERRY watched Thornton this year? I’m just curious. Remember, in the current schedule, fans in a given arena only see a team from the other conference every three years, and most West coast fans are still at work when Eastern teams go to work at 4:30, and most East Coast fans (and media) still believe no real hockey happens to go on out west and go to sleep before the 10:30 start time.
So lets get off this might horse and be done with it.
If you want the players who are playing the best this season at the All Star game, then have the coaches and GMs vote for the team (and don’t let them vote for anyone on their own teams).
But we don’t do that. This is the Fan’s game. It’s the fan’s choice — that’s what they keep telling us. And evidently it’s okay for the fans to keep voting for Gaborik in Minnesota (games played this season: 4, votes 115K and ahead of McDonald, Hejduk, and Michalek, to name jsut three well-qualified all-star capable players), but not okay to vote for Rory Fiztpatrick (486K votes).
Every year, teams put out press releases encouraging their fans to vote for the team’s candidates — not the most qualified ones. Every year, team-sponsored booster-club outings mass-punch ballots to try to get their team’s players in the game (well, not this year, since there’s no paper ballots). THAT is evidently okay.
It’s okay for a hundred thousand voters to vote for a guy who’s been on injured reserve all season, it’s okay for the sharks to tell the boosters and fans to vote for Cheechoo, even though he’s clearly taken a step back from his season last year. But of course, the media pundits will rationalize the first that Gaborik is a name, and therefore, that’s okay (sort of, and besides, being hurt, he won’t really play), and the latter will be rationalized away that Cheech is being honored for what he did last year, too — and I’ll actually buy into that to some degree.
So — it’s okay for fans to vote for unqualified people – if the media agrees with them. Bring in a player they don’t agree with, and suddenly, you have this massive character assassination of a guy and all the media ripping their shirts and declaring the end of civilization over this.
Reality check: THE ALL STAR GAME IS AN EXHIBITION GAME.
In other words, CHILL THE FRACK OUT. People are taking this way to freaking seriously. Most of the media (starting with Cherry) are mostly showing themselves to be humourless boobs that have no sense of humor OR perspective.
If you give the fans the right to vote — then the people they vote in are the right people to be there. There’s none of this “… but only if the media approves of the choices” anywhere in the rules I can find. So either accept the results as they are — the will of the people — or change the rules and give the vote to the pros. (hint: I have NO problem giving the vote to the pros, but the fan voting is a way to generate interest in the game and get people excited. Except, of course, when the media band together to piss and crap on the thing and make everyone feel sour and grumpy about it. Gee, thanks, Don. You’ve really made me look forward to the game, no matter WHO is skating… Great way to promote the sport you keep bitching at Bettman needs your help to succeed and grow…..)
go take a look at the news. Everyone’s talking about the All-Star game in the media — but it’s not about the game. It’s about The Controversy. Great for the media, rotten for hockey.
the media has, once again, taken what is at worst a minor bit of quickly forgotten trivia (and one the fans have actually done on their own. gee, fan interest and involvement, we HAVE to stomp that; bad for the game) and ramped it up into a major controversy, mostly by trying to set up the media as the people qualified to judge whether or not the fans are capable of making proper choices — and, of course, the media is once again standing up and declaring their viewers and readers TOO STUPID to be allowed to make choices like this. (instead, give it to the (ahem) media).
This sucks. And then the media will rip on Bettman over why there’s so much negative media on the NHL….
Reality: Fitzpatrick isn’t an All-Star. Neither is Gaborik, but lots of people are voting for him. Neither is Cheechoo this year, but lots of folks are voting for him, too. Every year, there’s an argument over some player or another that “deserves” to be there or “shouldn’t have been voted in” — think back the last ten years, and ask yourself if ANY year there wasn’t some player fans and media were bitching about.
Nope. Every year. just like clockwork. And it doesn’t matter. Not now, now last year, not ten years ago when the NHL started online balloting and the Sharks fans made it their goal to get Andrei Nazarov into the All-Star game (hey, back then, the NHL simply threw the votes out. no idea why they finally decided this year to treat this like a real election and count the fitzpatrick campaign; they have a long track record of ignoring or invalidating stuff they find inconvenient,a nd all of us involved with the “50,000 votes for Nazzy” campaigns (which may actually still be happening, I’ve lots touch) have known since year 1 that the vote was fixed (because none of our votes ever were counted, even when we followed the rules. WE won’t even get into the mid-campaign rule changes the NHL threw in to block us the first few years…..)
So my suggestion: GET OVER IT. the media’s trying to screw up the NHL’s party over a piece of trivia, one they conveniently ignore in other cases throughout the years, but this year, for some reason, they got this hair up their butt.
And then, the media will complain about how this all ruined what should be a fun atmosphere at the All-Star game — and blame the league and Bettman for it. STart to understand why Bettman doesn’t exactly consider many of the league beat writers friends?
How is this helping the league, anyway? Not that the media has to shill for the league — but can it simply try to not actively destroy it over trivia? Is that too much to ask? (hmm. reading the last five years of Al Strachan columns. Evidently, yes….)
Just get over it. All of you. Starting with Don. It’s the all-star game.
Quick question: name the starting teams for the last all-star game. Name the six goalies that played.
I see you all cheating on google. See? proves my point. The only reason this is a controversy is because the media felt like making it one, not because it has any real importance.
My real question, listening to the pundits on TV and reading the newspapers across the web: why do so many of the professional press have such a negative attitude towards the league this year? And if that’s THEIR bad attitude, why are they blaming the league for it and trying to tear down all of the positive improvements that came with the league last year?
What’s wrong with letting the fans do what they feel like doing, sitting down with the family and watching the All-Star game, where we can complain about the lack of checking and gripe about the 10-8 score with a smile, and then forget it happened two or three days later? That is, after all, about what the All-Star game is worth, and how important it is in the grand scheme of the game.
you’d never know it from how guys like cherry are carrying on though.
sigh. And here I am, talking about this instead of a damn good sharks/ducks game last night.
That’s ALSO the media’s fault….
News – Sharks Acquire D Patrick Traverse From Montreal For D Mathieu Biron – San Jose Sharks:
San Jose Sharks Executive Vice President and General Manager Doug Wilson announced today that the club has acquired defenseman Patrick Traverse from the Montreal Canadiens for defenseman Mathieu Biron.
There was a collective “huh?” in the section at the game tonight over this transaction. To me, the reason and timing are pretty simple: the Sharks are relying pretty heavily on Hannan and McLaren as the veteran influence on the defense corps. McLaren’s recently been out for a few games (“lower body injury” — rumor has it he’s pregnant, and I will continue declaring players pregnant until the league gets over this Monty-Pythonesque skulking around the injuries….
While the other players stepped up where they could, it showed with McLaren out. Traverse is a veteran, if we lose either Hannan or McLaren again, he can be brought up and step in and eat 15 minutes a game AND help steady the kids and take on some of the pressure. He is, effectively, an insurance policy on the big two studs.
Giving up Biron? As laurie said tonight “he’ll go and play for some other AHL team now….” — maybe down the road, but now, he’s a moderate price for some insurance…
I may be accused of channelling Don Cherry here, but…
If you want proof that fighting CAN have a place in hockey and impact a game, all you need to do is check out Monday’s Pittsburgh/Washington game.
The game started out completely lopsided towards the Capitals, who stretched it to 4-0 early in the second. At 13:47, with the score 4-1, the fights kicked in, end result 33 minutes in penalties and 3 game misconducts (to Washington’s Muir, and to Pittsburgh’s Orpik, who got a double-game misconduct; enthusiastic guy…..).
After the fourth goal, the radio announcers declared Fleury shakey looking and were wondering when he’d be pulled. By the end of the 2nd. it was 4-3, Pittsburgh outshot the capitals 8-4 in the 3rd and tied it, and went on to win in a shootout. The fight was a turning point in the momentum of the game.
I’m not saying this is the only way for a team to change momentum in a game, or even that it’s the best way. But it definitely can work, can break up an opposing team’s rhythm and give your team something to get motivated over — assuming, of course, your fighter doesn’t get pasted…. When it works, it’s a LOT more effective than, say, pulling your goalie or calling time out, or simply threatening your team with two hours of parachutes and wind sprints if they don’t wake up and get their asses rolling….
I was at Yahoo! HQ earlier this week and noticed that the sprinkler heads are purple
It turns out that a LOT of stuff is purple at Yahoo, including a cow at the reception desk.
While Yahoo uses a lot of purple on its campus and as one of its primary corporate colors, the reason the sprinkler heads are purple is not because Yahoo is that anal about color branding…….
It’s because purple in plumbing indicates that the water in that system is recycled. They’re irrigating their landscape with water recovered from the wrong end (or maybe the right end!) of the sewage treatment plant, which would otherwise flow out into San Francisco bay. While that water is “drinkably clean” if you ask any of the sewage treatment experts, for some odd reason most people have a problem with actually drinking it, so cities have been installing piping to take the outflow from the plants and schlepping it off to companies to use in landscapes and other situations where non-potable water can be used. It’s one of the ways cities are trying to stretch the supply of drinking water to avoid having to build more plants and find new sources.
Technically, the recycled water is non-potable, so all of the plumbing and fixtures that carry is are signed to show that and they use purple pipes and fixtures to warn folks that the water coming out here isn’t from the main (i.e. “safe”) water supply.
Sometimes, the color purple is simply the color purple. In this case, it just happens that Yahoo is near the water plant and shares the color with the water folks, for very different purposes….
Apple updates Apple ID site, finally allows editing (and puts your subscriptions where you expect them, sort of)
Apple has updated their My Info site to allow more Apple ID editing goodness. It’s been a while since I’ve taken a crack at changing any of this information, but last I remember, it wasn’t possible to change the actual email correspondence address of one’s Apple ID. The My Info site offers a slim, effective UI for adjusting your contact and shipping info, as well as setting your Apple communication preferences (do you want email/mail/phone calls, etc.).
I normally don’t talk much about what I did when I was at Apple, but…
Oh my god, they actually got this live.
Sitting on the MyInfo Page is a tab called “subscriptions”. If you click on it, it’ll actually bring up (some) of your newsletter subscriptions at Apple:
currently, it only shows my new music subscription, but it’s a start. Everything else (Apple eNews, etc) will show up eventually, as they can get the data migrated. Or at least, it should.
This is something I started suggesting (lobbying for, pissing people off by being annoying about, harping on, bitching about, choose your favorite term….) over four years ago; it seems like a no-brainer; the Apple-ID should be your one point of contact for all things having to do with your relationship with Apple. Subscriptions should be easy to find, and easier to update. And it should all be in one place, since from the point of view of the customer, it’s all Apple — customers don’t care about internal organizations or politics, nor should they matter, or leak into the view of the outside user.
Of course, it’s easy to kvetch, and it’s surprisingly difficult to implement something like this, given the scale of the endeavour. But it is finally here, and it’s working.
Well, okay, it has some issues. It shows me as subscribed — but the checkbox isn’t checked. Do I check the box to unsubscribe, or will that subscribe me? And it took ~30 seconds for it to do the data select and bring the page up, so they have performance problems, but I’m sure they’ll fix that; it won’t be butt slow forever. And, of course, most of my subscriptions aren’t listed, and they haven’t bothered to note that not all of them are in this system yet, or leave pointers to where you might find them.
But it’s a start, and it’s live, god help them. And it’s one significant step towards making life easier for a user in their dealings with Apple, because (eventually), the half-dozen or more places where there might be subscriptions to various newsletter things and other subscribed things will coalesce into a pane on the myinfo page, where a user actually has a chance of finding them.
Working on the integration of this system, and the migration of the data from my systems to the corporate ones, was one I and my group worked on for months prior to my leaving Apple. It was one of those projects that was a problem for everyone involved, no matter how hard you tried to solve problems, they wouldn’t stay solved. Easily avoidable problems, actually, that cost us six months or more in time and endless pain. It’s one of the few times I finally went to management and said I simply didn’t want to work with a person again (when I left Apple, after 18 years, there were three people on the list, all of them people that — given the project I was on and what they did for a living, there was no way I could actually not work with them; that was one of the things that helped me finally decide it was time to move on. And they were all great people to be with, just not people to work with, if you understand the difference).
But none of that really matters. What matters is the damn thing is live, and I’m thrilled to see it actually peeking out of the shadows and into the wild. It may seem like a minor thing — and it should look like it’s minor and easy to the outside user, but a lot of time and energy (and huge amounts of disk space and CPU time) and sweat and tears and a bit of blood and a few fingernail clippings (for the voodoo doll, you understand) went into the making of it — and about four years of time from the first time I remember talking to anyone about it and actually seeing it….
Congrats to everyone over there for finally seeing this puppy to birth. Now, all we need is the rest of that data to be migrated.. (giggle/ducking)
Imagine that you’ve filled your flash cards and brought them home, fired up Aperture and started the import. You come back a few minutes later to check the import — and you see the error message. Read errors on the card.
uh, oh. Now what?
I recently had that happen. To make life even more fun, I recently bought a couple of new cards (Kingston 55x 2Gig) to supplement the SanDisk Ultra II 2Gig cards I already had. One of the Sandisk cards was the one showing the error, and the first thing I did with one of the Kingston cards, of course, was leave it in my pocket so it got washed and dried with the laundry.
Do you assume the card’s bad? Or do you verify it? How?
Here’s what I did. your thoughts are more than welcome.
First thing I did was put the two cards, plus a third card (the new Kingston) in my card reader to see if they’d mount on the computer. They all did. I did this for a few reasons — but the main reason was that if there was something electrically funky about the card that got washed, I wanted it to short out the card reader, not one of the camera bodies. It’s a MUCH cheaper fix to replace a dead card reader, so any card you don’t trust, you should never put in your camera. Paranoia is a good thing sometimes.
Once all three cards passed the sniff test, I pulled them and put them in the camera and formatted them. I always format my cards in the camera I’m using them in, because I believe that minimizes possible compatibility issues. They all passed that test.
Now, one at a time, I put them back in the reader, and grabbed a hunk of files and copied them onto the card, so each would be ~90% or more full. The first card I tried, the sandisk, started failing.
The first reaction, I bet, is to think that the card is bad. But what if it’s the reader? This could be an expensive assumption.
So I took that third card, the one I HAD NOT done dumb things to yet, and put it in the reader, and started copying.
Yup. It failed. So now what?
As it so happens — because James had flogged the Lexar compactflash readers, as long as I was buying the new cards, I picked up readers for myself and Laurie. so I unplugged the old reader, unpacked the Lexar, and hooked it up, and retried the copy to the card.
Of course, all three handled the write fine, as well as erasing the files again. A stong indication that card reader is going bad. Good timing on buying that new one.
I wanted to go further to verify the cards, though.
I took each card and stuck them in the camera, and shot pictures of my office until the card was full. It then got stuffed in the reader, and I let Aperture import all of the images, and then erase and eject the card. I then made sure the images imported looked okay — no corruption or obvious problems. I then erased them all out of Aperture and deleted them from disk again.
About 40 minutes later, and 650 shots later, all three cards tested out, a full format-shoot-import-erase-format cycle. I formatted each card again, put the two Kingston cards in the Canon bodies, and put the SanDisk cards in the wallet.
I can now trust those cards in regular use. If you ask me, peace of mind is worth an hour or so of my time; I don’t want to be reaching for the wallet on a shoot to get a new card, and find myself thinking “is that the card that was throwing errors last week?” I’d rather retire the cards than carry them and not trust them. Any piece of equipment you’re not comfortable with is more of a hazard in the field than a help — so get to know your gear, learn how it works and how you want to use it, and don’t carry it unless you’re comfortable with it and trust it. that way, when shooting, you focus on the shooting, and not on issues like “will this work?”
the end result for me: one retired card reader (inexpensive), and three good cards (not so inexpensive). That’s good.
I think this backs up an important idea: for critical items, have a spare. Card readers are critical now. So are cards. you might not need to carry two readers in your bag in the field, but if you’re travelling? It probably makes sense (both don’t need to be expensive ones, they do need to be reliable).
Ditto cards. I use 2 gig cards these days. In my Canon bodies (D30 and Rebel XT), shooting raw, a 2 gig card holds roughly 200 shots. I feel it’s much better off to carry a pair of 2 gig cards instead of one four gig card. The risk of catastrophic failure of the card is much worse than the risk of losing a critical shot because you have to swap a card once or twice during a shoot. So to me, the only nice thing about the 4 and 8 gig cards is they drive down the price of the 2 gigs (always a good thing).
Every time I leave the house now, I carry five cards: two Kingston 55x 2G cards, one in each body, Two SanDisk Ultra II 2 gig cards, and a SanDisk Ultra II 1 Gig card in the wallet. That gives me close to 1000 shots before I have to get to a reader and import to make space. that may seem like a huge # of shots — but I have taken more than 600 shots in a single day, and I’d rather carry an extra card or three than run out of “film” at a critical time. Cards are much cheaper than missing a lifetime shot.
It also means that card failure doesn’t shut me down. Since I tend to believe failure happens at the most inopportune moment, I try to plan for how to minimize those disasters; it’s my way, if you want to look at it that way, of convincing Murphy to go annoy an easier target.
No film photographer would go out with a single roll of film in their camera — even though cards are much higher capacity, I think the same idea applies, though. To be honest, card failures happen, and if having a spare doesn’t convince you to carry two two’s instead of one four, then consider that carrying two two’s gives you a much better chance at salvaging some of the shoot if you lose a card in the middle. And finally, if a card fails, losing a two is a lot cheaper than losing a four.
All things considered, think about how many shots your camera can fit in a gigabyte of card, and how often you want to change them as you shoot, and buy the right size, but not too large. Don’t go too small, either. I won’t bother carrying less than a 1 gig card these days — 512m would be maybe 50 shots, and that’s just too few for me. I don’t want to be changing cards every ten minutes any more than I want to lose all of my shots on my only card. Cards in the 100-200 shot range seems “right” to me. Figure out what feels right for you, and buy to that size.
For what it’s worth: the Kingston 55x cards are MUCH faster than the Sandisk, both in accepting shots from the camera and in the import/erase process on the Mac. Very nice so far. And I noticed a huge (5x or so) difference in speed between my old reader and the Lexar. Using the Lexar AND the Kingston was faster than using either part with the slower alternative — so all of the pieces in the puzzle matter here. Something to consider as you’re buying these things — spending more on a top-notch reader is worth it in time saved, and faster cards also speed up the import process, and also reduce the number of times you’ll be waiting for the card during burst shots.
All things to consider. Sometimes a small investment ($20 more in a reader, $15 in a card) can significantly improve your workflow and cut the time you sit waiting for things to finish….
One of the things I’ve been trying to get a handle on are the home backups. I’ve been using Retrospect since, well, basically forever, most recently using it to back up the home machines to a firewire drive on my mini. I started out using two 100 gig drives in rotation, and when they filled up, added a pair of 200 gig (god bless digital photography). It’s to the point, though, where a full backup of the house (two laptops, two minis) is now > 200 gigs, and if you rotate your backup sets when the second disk fills up, you’re rotating them fairly often — and think about how long it takes to restart a backup with a full set.
You end up with too many windows of opportunity for things to go wrong, which made me increasingly uncomfortable. Add to that having all of the files stored in a proprietary format by Retrospect, and Retrospect’s long history of breaking every time a new release of Mac OS X coming out, with a delay before they fix it, and then a few patches to get it really right — not my idea of fun for a backup tool. And then there are various features of modern Mac OS X that retrospect.
So retropect has increasingly been a tool I’ve been looking to retire.
At the same time, I’ve been working more and more with a tool called Superduper!, which is (to some degree) rsync with a GUI, although it’s not really quite that. It’s allowed me to set up backups of the laptops to portable (now power brick) firewire drives, so the laptops can be backed up even on the road, Just In Case). Superduper also will back up over a network, but does it to a spare disk image — which, of course, Retrospect won’t back up. Another reason to retire Retrospect.
None of this really handles the offsite backup problem to my satisfaction, either, not even close. At one point, I kept three sets of backups via retrospect, rotating one offsite, but as the size of the backup grew, I let that lapse. Shouldn’t have, but I did. Besides, is an offside backup that’s four months old REALLY useful?
So, what do I really want?
1) No more full backups.
2) full automation.
3) No special tools to access files.
4) bootable backups (or backups that can easily be turned into bootable disks again);
5) off-site storage.
6) off-site storage WITHOUT physically moving stuff off-site, or having to make special off-site disks.
7) failure resistance. A failed disk should at worst be inconvenient. Ditto failed backup media.
After spending time researching tools and what other people are doing, I came fairly close, and down the road, I’ll have it all (I think).
The first decision: stop creating new backup sets, and dump retrospect. Instead, use RAID 1 to create a redundant mirror of the data. That way, if any one drive fails, there’s a usable copy that can keep the backup going and you can clone it to rebuild the RAID. RAID 1 also allows you to, if you want, add and remove drives, which gives you the option to create copies to go offsite.
You can do this in a few ways:
1) dedicated network storage device, that hooks up to your network and acts like a file server. they’re called various things like “network hard drives”, and come from any number of companies including Lacie or .
2) add a RAID system to the mini, using swappable bays to allow you to replace drives as you want. This would make creating off-site copies easy, as well as failure recovery as simple as possible. Wiebetech is a company with a line of products that does this.
3) Software RAID on the mini, and firewire drives.
The third approach is the one I decided on. I did so for a few reasons. First, I didn’t want to add another computer to the house, dedicated or not, so that let out the network disks. I also moved away from the network disks because most of them don’t do RAID. Most of the RAID 1 options require SATA boards, not firewire, although a few connect w/ Firewire 800. Neither is an option on a mini. If you look carefully, you’ll see most of the Firewire 400 RAID units tend to be raid 0 (striping), not Raid 1 (mirror), so they don’t really solve my problem well. The ones that do, along with the RAID systems with removable bays, tend to be significantly more expensive, than the third option — ultimately, I decided that extra expense wasn’t worth it.
My choice: Other World Computing has their Mercury Elite line of firewire drives that support drive sizes up to 750G, and have either one or two drives in them. The two-drive units use Software raid (softraid) to implement the RAID 1, and are pre-configured for RAID 1, so it’s plug and play. They come bundled with Softraid, so you can do other things as you want to.
I ended up buying the OWC Mercury Elite 500×2 with RAID1, plus a 500X1 unit to use as my off-site storage. I installed Softraid onto the mini, set it up to share the drive, and I’m currently using SuperDuper to back up the laptop to a sparse disk image over the net. Once that’s done, I’ll automate updating it nightly, and do the same to the other machines here at home.
The cost of the 500X2 & %00X1 with bundled raid software: ~$900. To create an equivalent with Wiebetech’s RAID systems (with hot swap and etc) would have run closer to $1600. network appliances that would support a 500G network drive in RAID 1 with the ability to roll a third unit for offsite start about $1600 as well, and keep going up from there. That $700 would pay for more drives, if I wanted to keep rotating units offsite.
My long-term goal here, though, is to roll off-site backups over the net, to S3 or some other network storage service. The initial 400Gig upload might be painful (or very painful, or extremely painful), but after that, it wouldn’t necessarily be so bad; You’d want to mount it as a file partition and update the sparseimages via Superduper, not update the backed-up RAID drive. I’m just not sure the technology is quite ready for that, and I’m still investigating what the real costs are in terms of storage charges and network upload charges — but my chickenscratch numbers indicate hauling physical disks offsite wins as far as costs go, even though a bit less convenient.
But I expect that to change, and that’s another reason not to invest in hot-swap RAID bays and stuff; I’m not too far from where that dual drive firewire unit will be my backup drive, and only touched for restores, or to replace a failed drive.And with RAID 1, that’s merely annoying, not a serious problem.
And it’s a setup that’s very resistance to problems caused by, say, upgrading to Leopard. All I need do is hold off upgrading the mini until softraid is updated and stable — no worry about the retrospect client or server software compatibility.
Given the sheer amount of data in a house these days, the only practical backup is to another disk. The only practical way to back up a backup on disk is via RAID 1. And ultimately, the way to protect the entire house is to copy that backup somewhere else.
This new backup setup, once I have the machines configured to do nightly backups, does all of that but the offsite component. I expect to do that manually, but it’s firewire plugs and quick configurations via the softraid gui, so it’s simple and fast. So it’s more likely to actually BE DONE. and everything is stored in ways that can be accessed by Mac OS X without special programs or tools.
What’s lost by removing Retrospect from the mix? The only significant thing are snapshots over time: Laurie and I talked that over, and the answer to the question “when was the last time we actually had to go find a copy of that Word file from last tuesday?” was “I don’t remember”, so in reality, it’s a minor thing we can easily live without. So we will. That’s probably a job for Subversion, if you really care…
One other nice thing about this setup: it scales. If I fill up this 500g, I can add another. and another, and re-arrange what machines backup where without having to completely redo the backups. With the RAID bay units, network disks, you’re scaling options are more limited, and generally limited to “add another unit”, which given the costs, adds up over time.
All in all, I think I met most of my requirements pretty well — and more importantly, set things up to not need any significant work for a few years moving forward. I’m very satisfied with the design. Now we’ll see how it plays in real life….
It’s thanksgiving in the states, and this year, I especially feel there are many reasons to be thankful:
I am thankful that George Gund was willing to bring the NHL to San Jose, a choice that was a lot riskier in the eyes of many at the time than it turned out to be. And I’m thankful that Greg Jamison came on board, and steered this franchise forward towards both success on the ice and profitability.
I’m thankful that both the owners and the players finally sat down and got serious about fixing the financial problems in the league. And I’m even more thankful that, while not a perfect solution, it’s made things better and more stable.
I’m thankful that the league got serious about making this a league for talent and not violent pylons. And again, while it’s not perfect, it’s a damn bit better than it was.
I”m thankful that hockey in San Jose has given myself and Laurie something we could do together and enjoy together, something that more or less acts as glue to our relationship. I am VERY thankful to be able to enjoy sports without guilt, because I know my partner enjoys them at least as much as I do.
I”m thankful that hockey has allowed us to meet folks like Vickie, and Jeff and Alanah, who’ve made our lives more interesting and fun by being a part of it (and in the case of J&A, fed our addiction to things paper and inked)
This year I’m especially grateful for these things this year. You might have noticed that there’s been a relative shortage of postings from me recently, and an absolute lack of postings from Laurie despite this being a blog for both of us. We had to put Laurie on the Injured Reserve for a bit (to quote our favorite Darryl Sutter playoff-time injury report parody: he’s pregnant, and we’re listing him day to day). While she’s not quite ready for a regular shift yet, she has promised me she’ll start getting involved again and getting some of her hockey thoughts and photos posted (or I’ll hack into her Mac and post them for her). And the fact that we’ll have this thanksgiving together, and many more into the future, makes me most thankful of all.
When I left Apple, I started a series of articles as kind of a post-mortem and view on things that I really shouldn’t have gotten into when I was an employee. As those things go, I ran out of interest in writing it before I ran out of things to write.
Left unsaid are three more topics:
Part 6: Should Apple blog?
Part 7: The Marketshare “problem”, (aka, damn you, Mike spindler, or why Apple’s Marketshare only matters to analysts you shouldn’t listen to anyway)
Part 8: Where Apple fits into the big picture.
And at this point, I’m frankly more interested in looking forward instead of looking backward, so I felt it made sense to just close the loop and mark this series done (but not complete) and move on. If you disagree — well, let me know and convince me to carry on. Me, I’m looking into 2007 for the launch (finally) of the Outsider’s Guide, and spending more time on my hockey writing and my photography, and Apple is probably happier if I just stop digging up skeletons, no matter how minor and trivial.
And while we had a big mosh pit over my comments on Apple’s blogging policy (and lack of one), it just reinforced to me that so much of the blogosphere is a self-reinforcing echo chamber, with people not really interested in hearing or learning, but merely making sure everything that gets said gets interpreted to reinforce what they already feel like thinking, or gets ridiculed and ignored. In that way, Blogging has turned very much into USENET of old, only with CSS formatting and moving pictures; the technology changes, the human interactions don’t. Sometimes, it seems blogging isn’t so much the conversation pro-blogging advocates want to promote it as as it is a bunch of people lecturing, all in the same lecture room with microphones. Everyone talking, nobody listening.
Of course, that’s unfair. There’s also a strong group of folks who ARE actually interested in discussing and thinking — but sometimes, it’s hard to hear them through the noise of the “loudest blogger wins” group. If people care about those topics, I can be convinced.
The executive summary of part 6, though, is worth a couple of paragraphs:
Should Apple have a blogging policy? In my mind, definitely, even though I could never convince the folks who needed to agree of that. One reason is simple: a standardized blogging policy would put all employees on the same footing, and it’d be understood what was acceptable and what wasn’t. As it stands, this decision often is made by a direct manager, or perhaps one or two levels up, and different parts of the company create restrictions (some of them very strict) well beyond the intent of the existing policies, and in some areas, in ways that significantly poach into Apple employee’s personal lives and personal time, which I feel is inappropriate (many areas of Apple retail, the brick and mortar part, simply outlaw employee blogs in any way — not just talking company stuff, but talking about anything, including Aunt Jenny’s wedding. That, I think, is excessive, and the reason I felt a blogging policy was needed in the first place. At the same time, however, I think that blogging policy, while making personal blogs acceptable, should clearly put “shop talk” out of bounds, unless blogging about Apple is part of your formal job description. This would (more or less) keep Apple’s blogging reality to the status quo, while making it explicit that non-work blogging is okay — and that’s the balance I think is needed and appropriate at Apple. As it is, Apple employees that want to blog personally simply hide their affiliation, which I think is silly, but in the current environment, necessary.
And should Apple blog? Absolutely, but not in a way that Scoble would promote or consider acceptable. I certainly wouldn’t create blogs.apple.com and open it to all employees the way Sun has — the situations are different — but I’d want to have a blogging system that execs and product managers and people who ARE allowed to be company spokesbeasts in a formal way could use as a communication channel. this is the path I think Dave Hyatt was trying to blaze with his safari stuff, but I don’t think the Apple culture was really capable of embracing it, and Apple management just doesn’t seem to understand how this can be used to advantage — or if they do, didn’t make it any priority to get done.
ohwell. At this point, it’s probably opportunity lost for Apple. I’d still argue “better late than never”, but Apple is definitely missing out on some significant and substantial changes in how people communicate and how companies interact with their customers; here’s hoping they don’t guess wrong and open a market opportunity to a competitor by not doing this.
I will also, just to close this all out, talk about one time when I brought all this up — waiting for a meeting on some subject I don’t recall with some apple managers from various parts of the company, and a couple of Apple’s finest legal beagles, we were basically shooting the breeze waiting for a couple of others who live in the Apple “chronically late” time distortion field (the one in which, despite best of intentions and hard work, all meetings start at 10 after the hour, because everyone is so chronically over-scheduled that they simply can’t get from meeting to meeting in time, because every meeting ends up running the full hour and so many people are booked back to back to back) — and blogging came up as a discussion point.
And I suggested that we have Steve blog. Silence in the room, followed by a few muffled giggles.
But think about it. Is there one person in the universe, who, if they blogged, every person on the internet would read? Imagine the ability of Steve to create a buzz, push a product, set up a marketing program, create an agenda. He could, merely by saying “hello”, give half the internet the vapors, and the other half heartburn.
you’ve seen Steve with the keynote bully pulpit he uses a few times a year. Imagine Steve with the bully pulpit of “Steve’s blog”, available any time he felt like talking about something — Apple or no.
The folks I tossed it at agreed it was a powerful idea, but couldn’t decide if it was one of powerful genius or merely an insane one. The one thing everyone was unanimous about was that they’d die before suggesting it to him.
And they’re probably right — but man, I always felt that would have been such a fun hack. Steve unplugged. Or maybe Steve unfiltered. Is the world ready for it? (is Steve?)
but I guess we’ll never know. As the folks in that meeting who worked directly with Steve all agreed: “Never happen”. But they said so with that look on their faces that indicated they saw the possibilities too — and the risks.
I’m one week in at work, and starting to settle in. So far, nobody’s figured out I’m a fraud….
Seriously, what’s to talk about? I spent the week starting to figure out XP (not a huge issue), going over product documentation, meeting and talking to people, and scoping out what makes sense to start getting involved in. I’ve started my first project, which may be the basis of a white paper down the road.
I’m happy to note that the positives that made me choose this position: the challenge, the people, the situation and opportunity, and the people, have all turned out to be what I thought they’d be. I’m also (not so) happy to note that the negatives I expected from the position are about what I expected — and the one that matters is the commute, since I’m now driving from Santa Clara to Redwood City every day instead of up Homestead to Cupertino. 101 is acceptable non-commute, but anyone sneezes and it falls apart, so I’ve pretty much decided to use 280, cut over on the 92, and back down to the Oracle towers (my new place is in the shadow of Oracle in Redwood Shores….); more mileage than direct up 101, but not only consistently faster, but pretty consistent.
The other negative are bay area drivers in the commute. I’ve made the commute six times now, and I’ve had to deal with 12 tons of gravel closing all but one lane, I’ve been in the delay caused by one major accident (three fire trucks, two two trucks and an ambulance when I drove by) — all for an accident in the opposite direction, where everyone else simply slowed down to gawk. Except for the four cars that didn’t; they were in lane 2 waiting for tow trucks.
That was one of two sets of read enders that I’ve seen this last week, each one at least three cars. Let’s add in the person driving at least 85 while weaving through traffic going up the 280 north — and reading the newspaper spread out across his steering wheel WHILE TALKING TO A PHONE HELD TO HIS EAR. The car from North Carolina that magically decided it wanted my lane while I happened to be in it, And I won’t even get into the red light runners and the right turn has the right of way people, and the “no turn on red doesn’t apply to me” folks. And just for fun, today, we had someone who got a bit confused on Marine parkway, and was coming west in the left lane of the eastbound lanes because they evidently didn’t realize the road had a planted center divider. or the person who almost nailed them because they weren’t paying attention.
Defensive driving is one thing, but… it looks like paranoid driving is needed. Or something. Because commutes make people stupid around here — and the worst trick is a really stupid one: when you hit a traffic slowdown, as soon as it breaks free, floor it and try to make up all that lost time. Which is one of the ways those rear-enders I’m constantly seeing happens (the other is not noticing the slowdown of folks waiting in line to look at the accident in the lanes in the opposite direction, probably because they’re too busy talking on the phone, eating, reading the newspaper, shaving, or putting on their makeup. Or maybe playing the flute….)
And we’re just heading into the rainy season where the traffic REALLY gets squirrely. ohboy… I’d slow down and put more space between me and the person in front of me, but I’ve learned that’s merely an invitation for some OTHER idiot to change lanes in front of me and eat the space up….
So far, so good.