Categories
Data Custody The Next Computer

Superhuman and the imposition of founder habits on users

Everyone’s email workflow is unique.

Most new-age email apps (such as Hey, which we examined a few days ago) impose the founder’s idea of how workflows are created on the idea of processing one’s email.

But for many, their workflow isn’t really explicit, but an outcome of some habits formed early on, and those are hard to change. For even more, their workflow is limited/influenced by the nature of their job.

This is why most innovation with email clients fails, and why there is such a large graveyard of excellent-looking email desktop and mobile apps.
I am reminded of this today by this review of the subscription email app Superhuman. The writer admits it is quite pretty, but points out some glaring limitations:

My attempts to filter out PR blasts into a single split was foiled since I couldn’t come up with a search term to encompass everything at once.

and

But the Important filter, while useful, isn’t perfect — despite Superhuman’s “A.I. Triage” — leaving me with plenty of dross in my “Important” inbox and a few key messages, including a team-wide email from our editor (which skipped the Team inbox since it was sent to the staff list, a feature you can’t disable) ended up in Other instead…

And of course every discussion of the Superhuman app must also acknowledge its USD 30 monthly fee. The writer recognises that the fee is not worth it. Though he does not say it as such, it’s pretty clear that the fee is excessive not just because of the app’s limitations but also because fundamentally it doesn’t improve the email management experience by that much.

My primary email app for years has been Thunderbird, which I have used on Linux (most of the 2000s), Windows (very briefly 2009-11) and then OS X (2011- now).

It is hardly the most good-looking email app in the market – it’s less ugly than just plain anachronistic – but it is very customisable out of the box, and then extendable further through add-ons. In terms of email management, which is what we are discussing here, I have a range of filters that have been built over the years to route and label email that makes sense for me, including backing up my email to local (on-disk) mailboxes. Then, I have replicated Gmail’s well-thought-through keyboard shortcuts via another extension. Finally, all these are in the context of the Inbox-less workflow we discussed earlier.

We have made this point before but it bears repeating: open-source software may look un-sexy and may have a slightly steeper learning curve, but you will very likely be able to adapt it exactly the way you like. And it will last you years.

📱

Categories
Data Custody

100-year startup

Yesterday’s post about Apple’s view that a strong pro-privacy stand is the right thing to do now even though it may be vindicated centuries later made me think about what Evenote’s then-CEO had said years ago:

We wanted to make a company that was durable, that would be around for 100 years, and did a little research about that. There’s a little bit over 3,000 companies in existence right now that are more than 100 years old, and the vast majority of them are in Japan.

Even as we get bigger, we don’t want to stay small, we want to get quite large, but we want to be a 100-year-old, very large company that’s still operating like a startup, people are still in love with, that’s making innovative decisions, that’s acting decisively. We didn’t know how to do it; we still don’t, but we thought “This seems like a sufficiently epic quest to devote our lives to.”

– Phil Libin in “Evernote’s Quest To Become A 100-Year-Old Startup

It was a great mission, and what a wonderful think it would have been for an Evernote employee to bear in mind as they headed in to work.

But Phil Libin is no longer CEO. As of today there have been two CEOs after him. And as far as I can tell neither of them has referred to the 100 year startup. It’s a pity, and it serves to show how it’s impossible to shoot that far when your own tenure in the hands of a board.

See this 2009 post on this blog on the audacity of Google’s and Microsoft’s original missions. Also see this fantastic 2017 profile of Evernote’s founder Stepan Pachikov, “Evernote Founder’s Impossible Mission“.

Categories
Data Custody Privacy and Anonymity

Privacy, and a centuries-long stand

No doubt as part of the promotion around Apple’s WWDC, Apple’s SVP of Software Engineering Craig Federighi gave an interview to Fast Company magazine about Apple’s relationship with Privacy. It contained this curious quote:

“But in the fullness of time, in the scope of hundreds of years from now, I think the place where I hope people can look back and talk about the places where Apple made a huge contribution to humanity is in helping people see the way of taking advantage of this great technology without the false tradeoff of giving up their privacy to do it.”

There exist companies that have multi-year business strategies. But there are very few companies that are willing to go against prevalent norms for extended periods of time on principle because they believe they will be vindicated years, decades – if you believe Federighi – centuries later.

Similarly, it is rare for a company to take a stand that is not opportunistic. Taking a stand against racism or for LGBT+ rights has become expedient today. Taking a stand against climate change will soon become expedient globally. But advocating for privacy, making major investments in an area that does not even have mainstream awareness, much less the momentum of public opinion, is admirable.

In terms of data custody for the 21st Century, Apple as of today is far ahead of Google and Microsoft, the other mainstream services ecosystems.

See: Apple’s main public-facing page for Privacy, which terms privacy a fundamental human right, and this page on how services tied to a user’s Apple ID keep data private.

Categories
Data Custody The Next Computer

The importance of OS support and of Not Forcing Things

In yesterday’s post about the first day of my Twitter-Reddit isolation, I mentioned that I spent Sunday morning coffee writing down some thoughts that I had connected. What follows isn’t about the content of what I wrote, it’s where I wrote it – in a document that I am now syncing between my iPad and iPhone via Resilio Sync, the BitTorrent-based P2P filesharing service

I have been a user for years but have been unable to make the mental move from a centralised cloud provider, first Dropbox and then iCloud Drive, to a pure P2P one. This is ironic since my first use of Resilio Sync, then BitTorrent Sync, predated my move to Dropbox. I have wanted a multi-device information sync infrastructure that was cloud-less, so I wouldn’t be locked-in, but also because I didn’t want to have to pay for cloud storage:

It seems strange to me that I’m paying to rent a few dozen GB on some company’s servers far away when I have already paid for hundreds of GB of high-performance storage on all my devices: my iPhone has 128GB, my iPad 256GB, my Macbook 250GB – all solid-state (and they’re all either on the same Wifi network or are connected via 4G on a plan that gives me hundreds of GB of bandwidth every month that carries over).

But iCloud Drive and Dropbox were both well-supported as external file locations by apps, which meant that even in the sandboxed environment of iOS, there was a very good chance your favourite apps would be able to access your Dropbox/iCloud Drive files. But having your files inside Resilio Sync meant that there was no easy way to edit them in place, or for media files, no easy way of playing them from the players you liked. They were locked-in, which limited its utility.

Things changed significantly with the introduction of the concept of external file providers in iOS 12, which Resilio Sync implemented. This meant that files in Resilio Sync could be made available to any app just like the two mainstream cloud storage providers. In fact, many apps have now made their storage available. This is the ‘Document Browser” on my iPhone:

Now I can store my text and all other sorts of files and have them available to any app that opens files via the iOS Document Browser – which now the vast majority of apps do.

What’s also helpful about this implementation is that if you enable an authentication lock on your storage app, the Document Browser will also ask for the same auth before listing and making documents available:

So. The plan now is to create all new personal documents in Resilio Sync, mimicking the organisational structure that I had set up in iCloud Drive, and make the move to Sync organically instead of forcing it. To see if a combination of Sync’s File Provider and the gradual approach works.

Categories
Data Custody The Next Computer

Email and Workflows – Part 2

(Part 1)

The most consequential change I had made was to change the default folder from my Inbox to one I called Desk (if I remember correctly).

The Manually Sort Folders extension made this possible:

The thinking was that we copied the idea of the inbox and outbox for email, but not how we actually work with it on our (paper-based) desks. The inbox was just a tray on one corner of your desk. it was not the centrepiece. the centrepiece was where you sorted, read, thought, composed.

I had set up a whole set of filters so that email from a whitelist would go directly into the Desk folder. This was my company management, my Product Management team, and key people from projects and partners I worked with at that time. Automated alerts, newsletters had their own folders. And finally, email from people I did not know would stay in my inbox.

A few times I day I would scan my inbox and rapidly triage email: I had a keyboard shortcut that would move email into Desk, and the Gmail shortcuts extension had one-key shortcuts to archive or delete email.

That meant I was free to spend most of my day in Desk, a folder with email that I knew was important, and into which no new email would flow unless I explicitly moved it there or it was from someone I had allowed in. Email could pile up in my actual Thunderbird Inbox or other folders, and I would not care. This most closely corresponds to the ‘Read Together’ feature of Hey, and meant that I could achieve flow several times a day.

Endnote:

By and large, open standards, open formats and open source software is tremendously more flexible and customizable. You can build a highly individualised experience that makes you highly productive over time. And/or you can build an experience that compensates for your unique weaknesses or disabilities in ways commercials software can’t or won’t.

The tradeoff is that because few open source projects have dedicated marketing and branding teams, the packaging will often be rather unsexy. Because the developer optimises heavily for the steady-state experience, setup will often be wizard-less (although this is a plus if it’s part of package managers like HomeBrew) and “hard”. The out-of-the-box interface will be optimised for functionality over looks, though it’ll be easy enough to tweak that with themes (and you can tweak those themes).

But if you understand that open-source software front-loads most of the work for increasingly less marginal work later, you’ll be able to look past superficial shortcomings. You’ll invest the time and effort it takes to set up your tool the way you want it. And you’ll be set for years – you won’t be hostage to software being sunsetted (Google Wave), business models changing (Dropbox, 1Password), the developer being bought by a larger company and either taking a different path or being shut down (Whatsapp, Tweetie, Dark Sky).

(ends)

Categories
Data Custody The Next Computer

Email and Workflows – Part 1

“HEY is not about workarounds. it’s about workflows,”

– Jason Fried, in the demo video for his new email service/client HEY

It’s a brave take on email. The last time anyone took on email with real vigour was eleven years ago. It was Google, with Google Wave. Tim O’Reilly termed it “email if it were invented today” instead of back in the 1970s. Google itself described it as bridging the “divides between different types of communication — email versus chat, or conversations versus documents” which really was even more ambitious.

Wave lasted a little over a year. Since then there’s been a lot of innovation in the design of email clients – desktop and mobile, especially after iOS’ popularity, but not in the basics of how you handle email. Even Google’s own Inbox, shut down but with many features merged with the mainstream Gmail, was tame compared to the audacity of Wave.

HEY is the first take I have seen that is in the vein of Wave.

But – as one comment online said – it’s an opinionated take on what email should be. Specifically, the opinion of Jason and DHH who have built it. Their workflows.

Contrast this with an open-platform email client like Thunderbird, which can be modified, via extensions, to suit essentially any workflow, any layout, any shortcuts. It’s a shame it’s not as popular as it ought to be.

During a phase in 2012-13 whenI dealt with many external parties at work and therefore several different individuals across different team, I used the outrageous SEEK extension that displayed my primary Thunderbird interface like this (screenshot from the SEEK homepage):

It resembled the iTunes Column Browser mode and was invaluable in quickly toggling between different ways of filtering my email. I was/am a fan of Gmail’s keyboard shortcuts, so I used an extension to add those very shortcuts to my Thunderbird. There used to be a whole clutch of Thunderbird extensions I would use to create an experience that was uniquely mine.

Now you could make the case that these are workarounds to the fundamental problem of email, not workflows – the very thing that HEY avoids. But I’d argue that the sum of these customisations resulted in a Thunderbird experience that matched my communications workflow then.

(Part 2: The single change I made to Thunderbird to create a whole new workflow)

Categories
Data Custody Making Money Online

Digital Tenancy

We have discussed earlier how different generations approach media like books, movies, music. The young today are comfortable with streaming services:

 …they have never had to store anything, never had to back it up. They lament a TV show or music album no longer being available because a service chose to not renew a licenss, but they move on quickly because they know it’ll just show up sooner or later on another service. Impermanence is not a bug, it’s just part of the experience. 

But even in the cases where they do ‘buy’ a song or a book or a movie or a TV show, they never own it – it’s at best a license for an unpredictable amount of time. They are renters, digital tenants:

Unlike many other streaming services, Prime Video not only gives you access to selected content with your monthly subscription, but it also allows you to rent or buy movies. The latter is explicitly advertised as a purchase and its price reflects that… [but instead] Amazon grants you a “non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited license, during the applicable Viewing Period, to access and view the Digital Content in accordance with the Usage Rules, for personal, non-commercial, private use.”

In addition,

The company also states that it cannot be held liable “if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming.” In other words, you are not buying a product, you are simply “licensing” the right to view the content on Amazon’s platform and your access can be revoked at any time.

This is true of your collection on the Kindle and Apple Books stores too. It’s also true of digital games that can only be played on a particular platform and need connectivity to a vendor-run server, like Valve’s Steam. It is very like the ownership issues with connected appliances we discussed only a few days ago.

The iTunes Store may be the big exception here. It has always offered DRM-free purchases of songs. When you buy a song from the iTunes Store, you download the MP3. You can back it up to an external hard drive, you can play it in a different music player, you can sync it to a non-Apple MP3 player – no problem. It truly is yours to own. The Store is such an outlier in this space that I wonder how long it will last.

End note: At a time when the music industry had realised how big the piracy problem was, I recall Steve Jobs made the argument by saying that the time taken locating, downloading, adding ID3 metadata to and organising an album’s worth of music files versus the cost of downloading it from iTunes (USD 9.99) meant you were making less than minimum wage – that you should just pay the USD 9.99 and earn more in that time. It was so simple and powerful that it has stayed with me nearly twenty years later.

Categories
Data Custody Privacy and Anonymity Product Management

Open-washing and Category Pollution

This week I learnt of the concept of open-washing, labelling a project ‘open’ without any actual substantial openness. Mozilla responded to India’s IT ministry’s call for feedback about its Strategy for National Open Digital Ecosystems:

…the current white paper also leaves much to be elucidated on both the need and manner of implementation of such ecosystems before a national strategy can be finalized. In addition to a distinct lack of clarity on how governance mechanisms of NODEs would operate within existing and upcoming regulatory frameworks, the paper also creates the potential for ‘open-washing’ of projects. 

because

The white paper leaves the definition of “open” vague and at the complete discretion of individual implementers. Consequently, implementers are not required to adhere to any minimum baseline of “open”. This risks empowering private parties to develop closed ecosystems that are only open in appearance while being closed in practice.

The response recommends that the ministry define 

a clear minimum baseline for “openness,” guided by internationally accepted best practices and the Indian government’s own policies. Adherence to this minimum baseline should be made a mandatory criterion for a project to be considered a NODE.

Having read this, it sounded analogous to what I call Category Pollution

This occurs when a company or its product runs a high-visibility awareness or distribution campaign claiming to be part of a new field, but in fact does only the bare minimum to qualify. 

People who experience the product are inevitably let down, but it also sours them on even considering other players in this new fields whose product are in fact deserving of the new label. The company’s campaign has polluted the new term, the new category itself. 

I have most recently seen this in the ‘wealth tech’ or ‘digital wealth’ space in India. Products that do little more than offer mutual funds claim to provide Wealth services. People who sign up for what they think is a new way to invest in a range of assets are disappointed and are unlikely to trust others truly different products in the space.

Categories
Data Custody Making Money Online Privacy and Anonymity

Data Ownership vs Custody for the 21st Century – Part 2

(Part 1)

The question is which party/parties you trust. It’s a question of who the right custodian of your data is. Because that is the question we are dealing with here:

Our terms of engagement in the connected world make it impractical and even unnecessary for you to have sole ownership and control over the sharing of the data your actions and transactions generate. But you do have agency over who you transact with. Whether you allow Google to build your social graph as a result of your email, video chat and text messaging or whether you allow Facebook is up to you. Whether you subscribe to Apple Music or Spotify is up to you. Whether you buy groceries from Amazon’s Whole Foods or from Trader Joe’s is up to you. So is who you bank with. All companies will use your data to enrich themselves directly or indirectly. But whether they will do it at your cost is something you can evaluate.

The question is Custody for the 21st Century.

For example as of May 2020, you can argue that it makes business sense for Apple to protect your data with them because their revenue – whether from hardware or from services – does not depend on selling your data to advertisers who may build harmful, incomplete, incorrect profiles on you. It makes logical sense then for you to entrust your personal information, say that generated by your everyday usage of your phone, to Apple instead of other companies. Extend that to the other places where you share your data or get your media.

The decision is also simplified – in many cases it may not be who to trust, it may just be that I don’t care enough.

Viewed as a choice of custody, it becomes an issue that people in tech, maybe even the broader public, can be coaxed to consider the importace of.

Endnote: Framing the issue as a choice of custody also makes it easy for people to realise where they have little or no practical choice: One’s ISP. One’s choice of phone. One’s choice of online store.

Categories
Data Custody

Data Ownership vs Custody for the 21st Century – Part 1

Data ownership is a topic important to me. Recently I have been thinking of ways to increase awareness of the matter among at least people in technology – not even the broader public. As I began diving into what I would call it – nomenclature is important; the words we use as a pointer to something affects the way we relate to it – I experimented with terms like digital liberty. Or ‘info-steading’, like homesteading. It turns out I’m not great at catchy terms.

But as I cycled through terms that would best capture why ownership of your own data is important, my thinking naturally expanded to what ownership actually means. Does it mean self-hosting your contacts, calendar, email? Does it mean storing your documents, photos, music, video only on your own hard drives? What is the benefit in each case?

If defined as self-hosting/self-storage as opposed to ‘cloud storage’, what about your browsing history and bookmarks? What does giving up Safari or Chrome sync across your phone, iPad and laptop yield in terms of you owning that data? Streaming Spotify and Netflix means these services own your viewing/listening data instead of you. For you to own your data, it means not using them and instead buying all your music, movies and TV shows. For your bank to not own your financial data, you’d pay and be paid entirely in cryptocurrency held in some offline wallet. Investing is going to be quite difficult. It’s all possible, but what does the trade-off look like for you?

Ultimately it’s the wrong question. It’s not an absolutist question about whether you or some other party owns your data. Today’s world – and the last couple of decades – has meant that to acheive any reasonable quality of life, you will end up sharing your data, in fact in many cases your data – or at least, data about you – will primarily reside with some other party.

Part 2 follows.