Kirk Lennon

This is in response to an article by John C. Dvorak, Steve Ballmer: good news and bad news

It’s not just an image problem.

Since Steve Balmer took over, Microsoft’s market cap has fallen to less than half of what Gates left it at. And it’s just because the stock market is irrational.

Microsoft rakes in tons of profits because of exactly two things: Windows and Office. (And that’s why its margins are higher than Apple’s too; software is inherently higher margin than hardware, especially when you can sell the same OS for the better part of a decade without any real updates.) The problem is that these two cash cows aren’t growing, and Microsoft has failed spectacularly in literally every other venture it’s attempted. Apple didn’t sell phones three years ago; now they account for 40% of its revenues and 60% of its profits. And this year it suddenly made tablets cool, and has been selling them like hotcakes. Steve Jobs has carefully steered Apple into new, extraordinarily lucrative markets, and the stock has risen as a result. Microsoft, in contrast, has lumbered around with rehashed versions of products that sell only as a result of its (convicted) monopoly status, while making desperate stabs in every direction imaginable.

Let’s discuss some of Microsoft’s failures:

• Tablets. They’ve been pushing these for almost a decade and nobody bought them. The problem was that they just threw some touch controls on top of a UI designed for a keyboard and mouse. Apple made an entirely new Cocoa Touch UI layer.
• SPOT. Watches, with some MSN crap. Probably cruel of me just to mention.
• Silverlight. It has all the disadvantages of Flash, except that nobody uses it.
• Zune. They started with brown and never recovered. All it did was kill PlaysforSure
• PlaysforSure. Based on the false notion that people want/need “choice” (where “choice” means a Microsoft software platform and various commodity hardware partners). Killed by Zune.
• Xbox. Popular, you say? Not from a shareholder standpoint. It’s making a slim profit now, but it will never be enough to dig itself out of the multi-billion dollar hole it’s in. They’ve lost a massive fortune in order to buy second-place in console gaming. And now Apple has, practically by accident, become a major player in mobile gaming.
• Windows Mobile. They’ve had mobile software for years, and it’s always sucked, but they formerly held a respectable share of the smartphone market. Then smartphones actually got popular (meaning sales reached numbers that mattered), but not for phones running Microsoft’s frequently renamed mobile OS. The battle is still waging here, but Microsoft has become an irrelevant bit player.
• Search. They’ve resorted to outright bribing users to search on Bing, but it’s been only modestly successful, where “successful” means a single-digit share of the search market, and no profits.

There are others, of course. I didn’t even discuss any of the “concepts” it’s publicly floated but were killed before they got the chance to die in the market (but should have died privately) *cough* Courier *cough*. Windows Vista (6.0) was a complete disaster in every possible way, ridiculously late, overpriced, and reviled by users. Windows 6.1 (or, in market speak, Windows “7”) is regarded as respectable, but I don’t think I’ve read even a single review by a serious journalist who would call it the best OS available. At its best, Windows 7 is a fine OS for someone who is too cheap to buy a Mac.

Office, meanwhile, is facing stiff competition from all directions. On the Mac specifically, Apple now offers a fairly complete suite in iWork, for half the price of Office, which itself had to drop in price just to stay competitive. More broadly, sophisticated productivity web apps are becoming a serious threat. Of particular note are Google’s offerings, which increasingly obviate the need for MS Office for many users. Google can offer these services for free due to the huge profits it makes from search. Microsoft can’t offer similar free services without sacrificing sales of Office.

The short version of all this is simply this: the last time Microsoft released anything that actually grew the company substantially, in an area of real profits, was 1995. Since then it’s really just been coasting along on momentum. And that is why the media and market lavishes attention over the things Apple does and ignores what Microsoft does.

My previous version of the mad lib app had a few problems. First of all, the story I wrote was terrible, and didn’t even use all of the variables entered by the user. Related to that, I made it ask every question exactly three times, even though I didn’t need three answers for each one. Furthermore, I wasn’t very specific about the user input, and it didn’t always work grammatically in my story. I’ve fixed all of that.

# Mad Lib
# madlib.rb
# Creates a mad lib based on user input
def ask part
input = gets.chomp.upcase
part.push input
end
verb = []
adj = []
obj = []
ly = []
job = []
puts 'Type in one verb, followed by a return:'
ask verb
puts 'Now, type in four adjectives, followed by return after each one:'
ask adj
ask adj
ask adj
ask adj
puts 'Now type in two everyday objects, followed by return after each one:'
ask obj
ask obj
puts 'Type in one adverb that ends in -ly:'
ask ly
puts 'Type in two job titles, such as "worker"'
ask job
ask job
puts 'One very ' +adj[0]+ ' day, a kind ' +job[0]+ ' went up to a ' +adj[1]
puts job[1]+ ' and asked to borrow some money to buy a ' +adj[2]+ ' ' +obj[0]+ ','
puts 'which he needed very badly. The ' +job[0]+ ' told him that he would lend'
puts 'the money only if the ' +job[1]+ ' would agree to ' +verb[0]+ ' a'
puts ly[0]+ ' ' +adj[3]+ ' ' +obj[1]+ '. The ' +job[0]+ ' decided it wasn\'t'
puts 'worth it.'

In my new version, I changed the user inputs to make them more specific. Instead of just asking for nouns, I ask for job titles and objects. Adverbs became an -ly adverb. The only place I see where it might not work out perfectly is if the adjectives start with vowel sounds, because the story has “a” before them, instead of “an.” I could write a huge amount of code (probably equal to this entire program, as-is, if not more) just to account for this and automatically change the “a” to “an.” I could also just ask people in the question to stick to consonants. But I don’t think it really matters. It’s a mad lib; “a orange tree” is to be expected.

The other issue is that by removing the code that automatically asks each question three times, I have to repeat the same lines of code for each time I want it asked. There are ways that I could code it so that I could pass it an additional variable—the number of times to ask the question—but my method is so short anyway (ask adj) that I don’t think it would actually save any space.
Here is the code when run:

iMac:Ruby kirk$ Ruby madlib.rb
Type in one verb, followed by a return:
open
Now, type in four adjectives, followed by return after each one:
blue
clean
dirty
high
Now type in two everyday objects, followed by return after each one:
cup
phone
Type in one adverb that ends in -ly:
fetchingly
Type in two job titles, such as "worker"
serf
restaurateur
One very BLUE day, a kind SERF went up to a CLEAN
RESTAURATEUR and asked to borrow some money to buy a DIRTY CUP,
which he needed very badly. The SERF told him that he would lend
the money only if the RESTAURATEUR would agree to OPEN a
FETCHINGLY HIGH PHONE. The SERF decided it wasn't
worth it.

This post is really just so I can say how proud of myself I am. I just finished cleaning up my most advanced app to date, and felt like sharing.

A few days ago, I randomly got the idea to make a Mad Libs Ruby app. I knew that the code would involve a lot of repetition, which would involve the use of methods, but—while I had read about them—I hadn’t actually learned how to use them yet. I instead decided to just write it with horribly inefficient code, and then clean it up. It would also serve to illustrate just how much code the final version would save. Here is the original version:

# Mad Lib
# madlib.rb
verb = []
adj = []
noun = []
adv = []
puts 'Type in three verbs, followed by return after each one:'
input = gets.chomp.upcase
verb.push input
input = gets.chomp.upcase
verb.push input
input = gets.chomp.upcase
verb.push input
puts 'Type in three adjectives, followed by return after each one:'
input = gets.chomp.upcase
adj.push input
input = gets.chomp.upcase
adj.push input
input = gets.chomp.upcase
adj.push input
puts 'Type in three nouns, followed by return after each one:'
input = gets.chomp.upcase
noun.push input
input = gets.chomp.upcase
noun.push input
input = gets.chomp.upcase
noun.push input
puts 'Type in three adverbs, followed by return after each one:'
input = gets.chomp.upcase
adv.push input
input = gets.chomp.upcase
adv.push input
input = gets.chomp.upcase
adv.push input
puts 'Thanks! Now I\'d like to tell you a story.'
puts 'One day a very ' + adj[0] + ' ' + noun[0] + ' went walking'
puts 'down the street. It came upon a ' + noun[1] + ' running ' + adv[0]
puts 'after a stranger sight. The ' + noun[0] + ' ' + verb[0] + 'ed a ' + noun[2]
puts 'with a ' + adj[1] + ' ' + noun[0] + '. But that\'s OK'
puts 'because he remembered to ' + verb[1] +'.'

It starts out by creating four empty arrays, for each part of speech. Then it gets ugly. The core part of the code is this:

input = gets.chomp.upcase
verb.push input

It creates the variable “input,” then gets it from the user (and also chomps off the return and makes it into all caps, so that they stand out in the final story). It then pushes the input into the array for that part of speech (in this case, “verb”). The problem is that these two lines get repeated exactly the same two more times for each part of speech, and the only difference in the code for each part of speech is a single word, defining which array it goes into. That’s twelve repetitions of two lines of code. Here is the new version:

def ask part
3.times do
input = gets.chomp.upcase
part.push input
end
end
verb = []
adj = []
noun = []
adv = []
puts 'Type in three verbs, followed by return after each one:'
ask verb
puts 'Type in three adjectives, followed by return after each one:'
ask adj
puts 'Type in three nouns, followed by return after each one:'
ask noun
puts 'Type in three adverbs, followed by return after each one:'
ask adv
puts 'Thanks! Now I\'d like to tell you a story.'
[The story part is the same as in the original, so I didn't repeat it here]

As you can see, I defined a new method, “ask.” It gets the variable “part” (for “part of speech”). Since I ask each question twice, I added that to the definition. The core part of the code is the same as before, except that I use the “part” variable instead. Then for each part of speech, all I need to do is ask, and pass it which part of speech. For each question, six lines becomes two words, and all I added were six lines (two of which are just “end”).

Of course, there’s also the story itself. It’s mostly just a placeholder right now. It doesn’t even use all of the words the user inputs. I’ll have to work on it. Also, there’s one part where I just add an “-ed” on the end of a verb, but that doesn’t work out very well for a lot of verbs. Of course, it’s kind of amusing to see “RUNed,” so maybe I’ll keep it.

Here it is when I run it in Terminal:

kirk$ Ruby madlib.rb
Type in three verbs, followed by return after each one:
beat
steal
worship
Type in three adjectives, followed by return after each one:
blue
smelly
smooth
Type in three nouns, followed by return after each one:
desk
floor
shoe
Type in three adverbs, followed by return after each one:
silently
violently
nonchalantly
Thanks! Now I'd like to tell you a story.
One day a very BLUE DESK went walking
down the street. It came upon a FLOOR running SILENTLY
after a stranger sight. The DESK BEATed a SHOE
with a SMELLY DESK. But that's OK
because he remembered to STEAL.

I bought my MacBook two years ago, and I love it. However, it occurred to me that I spend most of my time with it at my desk. My next computer purchase was obvious.

Last August, Apple updated the iMac line, giving it more power and an updated aluminum and black exterior—signaling a definitive turn in Apple’s overall esthetic from its iconic white to a more professional look first unveiled with the iPhone. Moreover, they increased the screen sizes. While previously available in 17″ and 20″ versions, rumors speculated about an obscenely large 23″ version. In fact, Apple ditched the 17″ size completely, kept the 20″, and introduced a **24**” model.

I wasn’t in the market for a new computer quite yet (not with my paycheck!), but I figured I could at least pick out my next computer. Three base models were offered: a lower-end 20″, a higher-end 24″, and a middle-of-the-road 20″ with same upgraded specs as the 24″. And so I spent the better part of a year debating between the juiced-up 20″ or the 24″. One retailed for $1,499 and the other $1,799. Four inches, or $300? I compared them in the store on numerous occasions. Do I really need the extra four inches? With the money I saved by going for the 20″ I could get an TV.

And then, three things happened:

1. Apple updated the iMac line. They all got higher specs, but the 24″ now gained a marginally faster processor than is available in the 20”.
2. I got a $600 economic “stimulus” from the federal government. I was going to buy an iMac anyway, but this helped me justify it.
3. Finally, I read a review and, apparently, the quality of the screen of the 24″ is actually substantially better than the 20”.

And so I relented, and bought it. The process, however, was more dramatic than it sounds. I actually considered filming it, but chose not to. The short version is that I covered my face when I clicked the submit button to buy it, then, frightened at spending that much money, peeked through my fingers at the screen.

At any rate, I am now the proud owner of a 24″ iMac. It is shockingly bright, and very fast. My MacBook was no slouch, but I’m amazed at just how much snappier this is.