I am not investing in any crypto currency. The thought has crossed my mind, but I am a bit too risk adverse to get into that. I do not invest heavily in stocks either. I was asked by a friend about my thoughts on thoughts on crypto currencies. I had not planned on doing a blog post, but decided I might as well. These are my off the cuff thoughts about crypto currencies, as I understand them.

While I think crypto currencies can make some add to the wealth of some, is a bit too volatile for anybody to seriously get involved in investing. This is for a few of different reasons.

The first is that it takes a lot of computing power to be able to mine cryptocurrency. Not just like running a single computer all the time, at its full maximum, but instead large server farms that consume more power than some entire power stations can output. You would need that much power to be able to mine enough currency to make it worthwhile, unless you have a lot of capital to throw at mining coins.

The second is that countries are already starting to regulate it, which in some respects is a good thing, but it may cause panic and a sell off, meaning some could lose a substantial amount of money. It may also mean that being able to convert crypto currency to another currency may be limited.

Third, let us presume that one does invest, and you decide to sell. Right now for some exchanges it can take a few days to actually perform the sell the coin, which, given the violability, can lead to wild fluctuations when it does come to selling. Meaning that you could lose money if the value of the coin is lower than the time you wanted to sell.

The fourth reason is that there are an ever growing number of crypto currencies that are emerging, and until the overall market shrinks, in terms of number of coins, it will be hard to determine where, and when, to invest. For those who are more prone to take risks, this is actually a good thing, as they can invest early, and possibly make a huge profit. At the same time though, you could stand to lose everything you invested. Whether that is from a coin going bust, or whether its from something else, which leads to the next point.

The fifth item, is the lack of backing. While it can be argued that the American dollar is not really backed by anything physical, like gold, it is still backed by the word of the U.S. Government, no matter how dubious that may be. Crypto coins, as of right now, are not really backed by any type of security for their value like real-world currencies are. So this is a problem.

Lastly, also on the topic of security, but in a different nature, crypto coins are ripe for theft. The big crypto coin exchanges are currently prime targets for thieves. Some of this is due to the exchanges' lack of security. If a thief can cause the currency stored in one's wallet and transfer that value to their own wallet. Thereby causing loss for many, through no fault of their own, but through the negligence of another entity in whom they trusted their information.

As to whether crypto coins will become an actual currency in the future has yet to be determined.. I do think that the block-chain technology, upon which crypto-currency is based, will actually be more useful to more people; even if they do not use the technology directly.

Those are my thoughts on crypto currencies, as it stands now. Even with all of that, there is still a small part of me that is kicking myself for not trying to mine a couple of bitcoins back when it was brand new. Alas, that seems to be my lot in life.

Earlier this year Apple announced a shift for macOS Server. Since writing up that article I have been thinking about some directions that Apple could take macOS Server. I have a couple of ideas, and thought I would share them.

Per Apple, the primary focus for macOS Server going forward will be device and storage management. Device Management within macOS Server is handled through Apple's Profile Manager service. One of the primary tasks with Profile Manager is to be able to restrict functions on iOS devices. With this being the focus, there is a possibility for some expansions. This is great for solution companies, but what about individuals?

Profile Manager can be installed, and managed by just about anyone. The tricky part is that some of the settings are not easy to understand and determine how they affect operating of an iOS device. Most of the setting are somewhat self-explanatory, for those more technologically inclined. What if Apple were to make profile manager non-techie friendly? This is my first idea.

User-Friendly Profile Manager

There are many different aspects to iOS that can be configured with Profile Manager, but many users are not like myself, and are able to understand what impact each of those settings could have, when they are set. I would love to see Apple create a cloud-based management portal for non-techies. In particular, one that can allow parents to manage their children's iOS devices.

Many parents would love to see the ability to limit the days and times that the iOS devices that their child has can be operated. In addition, they would also like to be able to allow certain applications all the time, like apps for school work, or maybe evening learning applications.

In order for Apple to provide this type of service, additional and more granular restrictions would be needed for iOS, but providing this type of service, as well as the restrictions, would go a long way to helping parents keep an eye on what their children are using.

The reason for making this could based, instead of just iOS-based, would be so a parent could adjust settings from anywhere. It would also be useful to have an app for the

Cloud-based Profile Manager

One of the other ideas that I have pondered, is one where Apple provides a cloud-based profile manager, similar to its current form, just cloud-based instead of on-premise. This would not necessarily replace profile manager for those who host it within their company, but could allow smaller companies to get into Profile Manager without needing to have a server on-site.

Profile Manager requires an Open Directory server to connect to. This means that you either have to have one on the same server as the profile manager server, or one that can connect.

Providing this service would require an additional Open Directory server to be present on the Profile Manager server. This server could be a secondary server, but one would be necessary. If a company is only hosting their profile management server in the cloud, then it would make configuration a lot easier.

Providing a cloud-based profile manager server could be a benefit smaller companies who would want to be able to have the ability to control devices, but do not have the internal expertise to manage a macOS Server. Similarly, this could help Apple add to its services revenue, which could help in the long run.

These are just a couple of ideas for where Apple could take macOS Server. Only time will tell if this is the direction Apple will take macOS Server or not.

Yesterday I wrote about the HomePod leaving white rings on surfaces. There are some additional clarifications regarding the white rings.

The type of surfaces that are affected by this are surfaces that have been treated with wax or oil. This issue does not affect Medium-density fibreboard (MDF) wood, or any sort of other treated wood. This means that most surfaces should be okay.

The second clarifications that is needed is that this is not an Apple-specific issue. This type of issue also affects Sonos speakers as well as Amazon Echo devices. So this is not exclusive to Apple, but it can also affect Apple products.

The primary issue that is causing these white rings is the interaction of the silicone base with the wax or oil-treated wood. The chemical reaction that occurs between the two surfaces is facilitated by the vibration of the device and is the primary cause of the white rings.

Ultimately, what this means is that users who have oil-treated or wax-treated woods in their home will need to put something under their home pods, or other speaker device, it could be something as simple as a cloth, or even a paper towel. I would recommend something soft, like felt.

It appears that the HomePod is leaving white rings on stained wooden furniture. To put it bluntly, "why"? Apple has been testing the HomePod in employee's homes for a couple of years, how could this not have been noticed before? This seems like an oversight on Apple's part.

This was initially pointed out by The Wirecutter.

Be careful where you put it. The HomePod’s base left rings on wood finishes. The rings faded over time, but we wouldn’t risk it on good furniture."

From Apple's own HomePod support article:

It is not unusual for any speaker with a vibration-dampening silicone base to leave mild marks when placed on some wooden surfaces. The marks can be caused by oils diffusing between the silicone base and the table surface, and will often go away after several days when the speaker is removed from the wooden surface. If not, wiping the surface gently with a soft damp or dry cloth may remove the marks. If marks persist, clean the surface with the furniture manufacturer's recommended cleaning process. If you’re concerned about this, we recommend placing your HomePod on a different surface.

If this was a product from another company, it would be one thing, but this is Apple. Apple is typically known for their quality hardware, but this seems like they should have tested this. Per the WireCutter review, Apple recommend “try cleaning the surface with the manufacturer’s suggested oiling method” — in other words, go refinish your furniture." This is just unacceptable for most users, it would be for me.

I am not likely to experience this issue, as my HomePod is either sitting on a glass shelf or on carpet. However, if I ever put it on my computer desk or in my living room, which has hardwood, then I will need to place it on something. I am hoping that Apple will be fixing this in future versions. It may be simply fixed by putting a felt bottom on the HomePod, or even just providing a felt cloth. If I move my HomePod, I will put a felt cloth under the HomePod to avoid this issue. Regardless of a simple fix, Apple does need to address this issue.

Photo source: thewirecutter.com, Photo by Jon Chase.

At their World Wide Developer Conference last June, Apple announced a brand new product, and not just an iteration on one of its existing products. This product is the music speaker, called the HomePod. The HomePod officially became available on Friday. Despite nearly 11 inches of snow falling in the Chicago area, I ventured out to get the HomePod that I ordered for Pickup at the Apple Store. I was not sure if the Apple Store was even open with all of the snow, but they were. As a side note, my nearest Apple Store is just about five miles from my house and it can often take 25 minutes to go through with traffic, even with the slow driving, it was only a 15 minutes to get there, which is a nice change of pace for getting to and from my local Apple Store.

The Size

Almost every company will list the dimensions of their product, Apple is no exception. What you do not expect is the actual size of the HomePod. The device is quite compact and smaller than you might expect. The size makes it ideal for being able to place even in places with limited space.

The Weight

Within the diminutive space taken up by the HomePod there is a lot of equipment. The HomePod is surprisingly heavy at five and half pounds, or two and half kilograms. It is not unmanageable by any measure, but it is surprising how much they have packed in there. All of the technology is used to make the HomePod sound as good as it can. Before we can get to how it sounds, you have to set it up.

The Setup

The Setup of the HomePod is just as simple as setting up a pair of AirPods or a pair of Beats Solo 3 Wireless headphones. There are seven screens to the entire setup, The steps are: initial setup screen, location, personal requests, terms and conditions, account, and examples for what you can do.

The Sound

One of the things that I am doing, throughout most of the day, is listening to some sort of audio. It could be podcasts, audiobooks, or even music. The last twenty years have mostly been with headphones, and not on speakers that are not very close to my ears.

Apple has position the HomePod as a music speaker first and foremost. It is not easy to describe just how good the sound is. I have tested in four different rooms, the master bedroom, the second bedroom (which really is an office), the living room/dining room, and the bathroom. Each of these rooms are different sizes and have different materials in them. In all of the rooms the HomePod sounds good.

During my initial testing in the living/dining room, which has hardwood floors and is the most open space, it did not sound as good as the other places. Do not get me wrong, it still sounds good, just not as good. I would think that it might be better with two HomePods in that area, but it will not work until iOS 11.3 is available.

One of the tests that I wanted to make sure I did was using the HomePod as a speaker for the Apple TV. I did this with two different items. The first was the latest episode "My Next Guest" starring David Letterman. This was the episode with George Clooney. The second, and one I really wanted to test was a with a movie. In this case, Geostorm. With both of these, and both of these sounded really good on the HomePod.

Smarts

The HomePod is a high end music speaker and a smart speaker second. Siri on the HomePod is more limited in what it can do, as compared to an iPhone. It can perform some functions, particularly related music. If, during setup, you opted to allow personal requests, it can perform some of those tasks. When I tested adding information to an existing note, it did work, however it took several minutes for it to arrive, which is not typical when adding notes from other iOS-based devices, or even a Mac.

When using the phrase "Hey Siri", the HomePod can most definitely hear further than any other Siri-enabled device. I was a couple rooms away and the HomePod heard me without any issues. This is really convenient. And I did not even have to yell, or even raise my voice in order to have Siri hear me.

Frustrations

The HomePod is a voice-only device, which in and of itself is not a problem, however with other iOS devices around, it can be an issue. Normally I have my iPhone wherever I go, and sometimes I have my iPad as well. When I uttered the trigger phrase, "Hey Siri", the HomePod and iPhone would do a quick determination of who will take the request, which was usually the HomePod, the iPhone would dismiss Siri. However, the iPad never entered into this determination. It always perform whatever action I asked of the HomePod or iPhone.

Closing Thoughts, For Now

I have not determined where the HomePod will ultimately end up. I have been moving it between the master bedroom and second bedroom, depending on where I am doing things. The final answer may be for me to buy a second HomePod and keep two of them in different rooms, but this is not a cheap solution. So far, I am enjoying the HomePod. After I have had some extended time to test it, and really put it through its pace, I will write a full review.

Everybody has heard, and likely uses, the term "app". In case you are not aware, app is short for application. A decade ago, prior to the release of the iOS App Store, an app was something that ran on a Mac or PC. With the ability for third-parties to create applications, the term "app" became part of the lexicon.

With everyone using the term "app", the question becomes, how do you define an application? Having used technology for the last 25+ years, the term "app", and all it encompasses and represents, has become instinctive and intuitive. Additionally, it is not often something I think about.

However, after listening to episode 259 of the Accidental Tech Podcast, I began contemplating the term. What prompted this is something discussed in the episode. Casey Liss said that he created a Mac app. John Siracusa argued that it was not a Mac app, because it was a command-line based.

This got me to thinking, "How do you define what is an application?". I generally agree with John, on many things, but in this case I must disagree.

After some thinking, I think I have a way to define an "app. My definition is: "Any set of compiled, or interpreted, code, along with its supporting assets, that is run on a specific platform." I think this succinctly sums up what an application is.

Some people would likely define an app as something that you interact with and has a graphical interface. Yes, a vast majority of today's operating systems are graphical in nature, and it was a natural progression to make. However, anyone who requires an app to have a graphical user interface is doing a disservice, not only to themselves, but they are also ignoring a significant portion of today's computing resources. The disservice is not only to non-graphical applications, but also to all non-graphical operating systems. Some of these operating systems range from most Unix systems, to the more mainstream ones like MS-DOS, BeOS, OS/2, and even Apple DOS.

With this definition, the interaction method does not make a difference. For instance, if you have a Mac app that is a command-line based application, to me, it is still a Mac app, because it runs on the Mac. It may also run on a Linux box but it is still a Mac app. Similarly, if an app runs on iOS it is considered an iOS app.

It may be seem like a small thing, and the grand scheme it is, but it did get me to thinking. Even though you may initially dismiss any command-line interface, you may also fail to recognize that a significant portion of things that you use on the internet every day runs using the command-line. Just some food for thought.

This is a great clip of Alex Trebek trash talking some nerds in a category. Even though I am a nerd, and do not really care about Football, even I knew two answers and double-guessed myself on a third. The ribbing is absolutely deserved.

Via: Lisette Voytko. Source: Vice.com.

Apple has unveiled a set of HomePod advertisements. These are short 15-second ads, but they accurately show what the primary focus of the HomePod currently is, music.

The first version of what we call macOS was released in 2001, with the release of Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah. When Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah was released, a separate version called Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah Server was also released. At the time of its release the landscape of servers, and their utility, was entirely different from today's landscape. Back then, high speed internet was generally limited to large companies and home users typically had dial-up, ISDN, or possibly even slow DSL connections. The roll out of cable-based internet was not nearly as ubiquitous as it is today. Mobile internet was not even on the horizon for many users. That would come a half dozen years later with the release of the iPhone. Today's internet landscape is vastly different. Mobile broadband as well as home broadband are more common than before. Of course there are some exceptions, but having high speed internet is the norm in many places.

The server portion of macOS has seen its share of changes over the years. At first, the Server version was a separate installation and had its own pricing structure. As time progressed, the features of macOS Server increased. As the feature set increased, the pricing of macOS Server has decreased. Initially, Server came in two versions, a 10-client and Unlimited Client versions. With the release of Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, the unlimited version was the only one released. Its price was reduced to the price of $499, which was the original cost of the 10-client version. This is down from $999.

Mac OS X 10.7 Lion completely changed the server paradigm on the Mac. Instead of being a different version, the entire Server application was released as an application. The price was reduced again to $49.99. This was a substantial reduction from the previous price, a 90% price drop. With OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, Apple reduced the price even further to $19.99 for the app. This has been the pricer new purchases, but for the last few versions if you previously purchased macOS Server, each new version was a free upgrade.

macOS Server has had a standard set of services that it has provided, with a few additions over the years. The set of all services that macOS Server has provided over the years is as follows:

• Caching Server
• Calendar
• Contacts
• DHCP
• DNS
• File Sharing
• Mail
• Messages
• NetInstall
• Open Directory
• Profile Manager
• Software Update Server
• VPN
• Websites
• Wiki
• Xcode
• Xsan

With macOS High Sierra (10.13), Apple moved a couple of these services to the core operating system itself. Caching Server and File Sharing were both integrated into macOS itself. Xcode Server was also removed from macOS Server and that service was integrated into Xcode 9, and its core functionality changed. Xcode Server removed the ability to host code repositories, instead relying on services like GitHub to do this for users. Apple has unveiled some new information about the future of its macOS Server application, specifically what the spring update to macOS Server will bring to those who use macOS Server.

macOS Server is changing to focus more on management of computers, devices, and storage on your network. As a result, some changes are coming in how Server works. A number of services will be deprecated, and will be hidden on new installations of an update to macOS Server coming in spring 2018. If you've already configured one of these services, you'll still be able to use it in the spring 2018 macOS Server update. These deprecated services will be removed in a future release of macOS Server, so those depending on them should consider alternatives, including hosted services.

The list of deprecated services include:

• Calendar
• Contacts
• DHCP
• DNS
• Mail
• Messages
• NetInstall
• VPN
• Websites
• Wiki

Apple does provide a list of alternatives for each of the deprecated services, within the support article. These alternatives will require a bit more knowledge, and more likely more configuration, over the graphical interface provided by the Server application. This change will have the biggest impact on small and medium businesses who rely on macOS Server to be able to run their custom applications. It is not impossible to continue to use macOS to host these, it just will not be a elegant to do so.

The deprecation of these services leaves only a few remaining services. These service are:

• Open Directory
• Profile Manager
• Xsan

That is all that remains of macOS Server with the next update in the spring. If you have any of the deprecated services already configured, these will still be available to be managed. Profile Manager, and by extension Open Directory, are still areas which Apple can differentiate themselves and management of macOS and iOS devices is an area that Apple still feels is very important. I think the writing was on the wall for macOS Server after the Software Update Service was officially deprecated. If one of the features that many institutions relied on was being deprecated, what about the other services.

The removal of Calendar, Contacts, DHCP, DNS, Mail, Messages, Net Install, VPN, and Wiki, honestly all make sense. The usage of these services by individuals and small businesses is probably very small. These services were big and much needed 15 years ago, but are not necessary today. The one that I would like Apple to keep is Websites, only because I tend to do some web development on my Macs. With the removal of Websites, packages like XAMPP are likely to become even more heavily used by developers.

As the article states, "These deprecated services will be removed in a future release of macOS Server". It is my guess that these services will be removed in the version of Server that corresponds with the next version of macOS. Like macOS Server 6.0 that is paired with macOS 10.14. It is entirely possible that these remaining services will be integrated directly into macOS itself and activated similarly to how Caching Server is activated, through System Preferences, however since these services still require a bit of advanced knowledge, these are more likely to still be configured by a separate, albeit a much smaller, application. It is possible that Apple may even reduce the price further, to $9.99 or possibly even free. I know I am interested in seeing how macOS Server 6 is under the next version of macOS.

Source: apple.com.