The keynote for WWDC 2014 came and went yesterday (had to watch it last night, given I was travelling on business all day Monday). Despite all manner of bold predictions, absolutely nothing really earthshattering happened. Apple didn’t change anything all that radically. They didn’t invent any new categories of product or service. Basically, what we got are what appears to be reasonable software upgrades.
So the Beats/Apple deal is official (and at a slightly lower price than originally expected). Now, of course, the next question comes up: what next? Specifically, how does this deal potentially impact Pandora and Spotify? Both are the biggest players in the streaming music space. Conventional thinking is that Spotify is under the biggest threat, but that conventional thinking also appears to be making conventional assumptions about how the threat will appear. Just having more money won’t make Beats Music a threat to Spotify. And thinking Apple/Beats isn’t, or won’t be , a direct competitor to Pandora? Well, that’s dangerous and limiting as well.
Rumours started swirling yesterday that Apple was in talks to buy Beats. The supposed price tag is somewhere around $3.2 billion. All manner of speculation has arisen as to why Apple would want Beats, and why they would pay that kind of price for them. Almost all of the discussion has focused on Beat’s rather modest streaming service, which should’t be overlooked. But perhaps there is a bigger thing going on here.
A recent piece on Forbes outlines 5 reasons why the author believes Apple could be the next Sony. The ideas are interesting, and conceptually reasonable, but the author makes some mistaken assumptions about a couple of things. He isn’t wrong on many facts, but there are some underlying assumptions that are incorrect.
The “Don’t Learn To Code” movement continues to chug along in the background, attempting to counter the “Learn To Code” folks. A recent post, along with a seminal piece on Coding Horror, all express opinions on to why learning to code really isn’t that important, or in some cases may be either inappropriate or even dangerous. A lot of these “don’t learn to code” pieces tend to focus on the technical elements of why coding is harder than you think, why it takes more than a quick weekend course, and lament the state of development tools. But few address a more fundamental question, one posed as a popular argument for learning to code.
The interwebs are now rife with retrospectives on what happened in the past year, as well as predictions for the coming 12 months. I’m not going to go back and reminisce, because what’s done is done. It is fun, though, to look at ahead to the future. Some of this will look and sound and feel like a “prediction” at times, and I’d be lying if I said they weren’t, but I don’t claim any of them will actually come to pass. Like any estimate, it’s a guess and not a guarantee. And I know I’m more likely to be wrong that right (which is the only prediction I’ll probably get right). But I don’t let little details like that stop me :-).
A post on AlleyWatch proposes a way for a non-technical person to qualify and hire a developer. It presents, among other things, a list of 10 interview questions to ask prospective candidates. The problem, though, is that the author makes some fundamental mistakes in my mind, and is trying to avoid hiring multiple people for multiple jobs.