I’ve largely been silent on the issue of Ferguson, MO. Most of what I’ve “said” on the topic have been retweets and reblogs of what other people have said. Since I’m not on the ground there, I’ve ceded my voice to those that are. Since this doesn’t feel like my story, I’ve ceded my voice to those who it is.

Though I’ve been developing opinions of my own on the subject, I was waiting for the evidence and the investigation to be made public before saying anything. I feel that I need to be serious with my words; firing off half-baked opinions about a controversial topic based on shaky evidence is not what I want to be known for. I trusted our justice system to conduct a complete investigation and give Officer Wilson a fair trial.

With Monday’s announcement that there would be no trial (at least at the state level), that trust has been shaken. And so I write.

I firmly believe that there is enough doubt around the circumstances of Michael Brown’s death that a trial is deserved. The solution to conflicting reports is to bring them out at trial. The solution to conflicting evidence is to investigate it. There is a lot of noise around this event; we need a real investigation and a real trial to cut through the noise and find the truth.

Many people have bemoaned how the court of public opinion has already found Officer Wilson guilty of murder. The St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney could have taken the judgement to an actual court, but chose not to. Perhaps I am being unfair–after all, it was a Grand Jury that chose not to indict Officer Wilson. Yet Attorney McCulloch had a simple job and failed to do it.

These events have shaken my faith in the justice system in my country. I’ve always believed that the system was fair; I see now that it isn’t. I have thought that the disproportionate targeting of African-Americans by police was a factor of wealth or some other circumstance, but now I’m wondering if racism in the police force is a bigger problem than I first believed.

Even if Michael Brown was a thug that deserved to die, Officer Wilson did not have the right to make that decision. The death penalty, even where it exists, can only be given out by a jury, not a single officer. If Michael Brown did not deserve to die, then this is a crime. This needs to be investigated. We need the truth.

Apple’s latest earnings have an interesting note: their research spending is the highest it’s been since 2006.

Research and development is a fancy business way of saying “doing new things.” When my previous employer entered the great recession of 2008, the plan to weather the storm was to double-down on R&D. By investing in new products when the market was slow, the company would have those products ready when the market was ready to buy. Our part of the company–tasked with entering a new market for the company–was one of the few areas allowed to hire new employees.

The economy’s recovery in general is up for debate, but the advice is sound: research and development is a key investment for any company, particularly product-based companies (which any software company is, SaaS not withstanding). It’s almost too obvious: as annoying as constant calls for Apple to release a new product are, they do have a point. New products and innovations are the lifeblood of these companies. Which is why every company invests in research and development.

To provide some context, simple research is a constant cost. A company sets aside a certain amount every year to pay a certain number of people to spend a certain amount of time exploring new ideas. Google is (or at least was) famous for its “20% time” that allows any engineer in the company to spend time exploring. Microsoft has an entire division devoted to exploration. Apple obviously has its own research and development; they would be unable to update their products annually without it.

When a project is close to completion, things change. Completing a project means investing in quality assurrance and testing. It means finalizing all of the little details that make the difference between a “good” product and a “great” one. What was once a fixed cost suddenly becomes more variable.

Which brings me back to the inital observation: the last time Apple’s R&D spending was this high was in 2006. Apple’s most important product of the last 10 years–the iPhone–was introduced in 2007.

By now there’s too much smoke for there not to be some kind of watch-like device from Apple, most likely to be introduced this Tuesday. And given Apple’s increase in research spending, it’s going to be a big deal.

Personally, I can’t wait. You?

I like Owl City. This is independent of my appreciation for Owl City. At their best, Owl City has a tendency to take me back to the late nights in my humid converted-attic bedroom the summer before my sophomore year of high school. To sum up a thousand-word essay in a sentence, it was the summer I really started letting my imagination free. Needless to say, it was a very formative ten weeks.

By that measure, Owl City’s new EP Ultraviolet does not disappoint.

The first track, “Beautiful Times,” features Lindsey Stirling on the violin. The music is full, lush, and steady, matching the song’s patiently optimistic lyrics. Lindsey’s violin helps drive home the song’s theme of seeing even a “fight of my life” being “beautiful times.” It’s followed by “Up All Night,” an infectious dance song that seems to be about a missed connection, though anyone that’s had a person (or other thing) on their mind for an extended length of time can relate.

The third track, “This Isn’t the End,” deals with heavy issues including suicide, panic attacks, and abandonment. It was hard for me, personally, to see past those issues enough to judge the song musically, though it does seem to be the weakest song in the set.

The selling point of the EP for me is the last track, “Wolf Bite.” Like Owl City’s first mega-hit “Fireflies,” the song has a bit of a musical dichotomy: while the words seem to belong to a quiet, understated song, the music apparently thinks otherwise. This is something Adam himself lampshaded on his blog:

Spoiler: Owl City is 95% sad lyrics over uplifting chords.

Unlike “Fireflies,” however, I think the dichotomy is warranted on this song. While “Fireflies” is a song about being unable to sleep (and things getting weirder as a result!), “Wolf Bite” is a call for help. Instead of the focus of the song being inward, the focus is outward toward another, calling out to “show me the way.” In other words, if you get one song off this EP, get this one.

Album Rating: B+

You can stream it on Spotify or buy it on iTunes.

I appreciate a lot of things, and I like a lot of things. They are not necessarily the same things.

In my personal dictionary, when I appreciate something it is usually on its more concrete qualities. I appreciate the workmanship of a well-built desk. I appreciate the fuel efficiency of a moped. I appreciate the cuss out of my laptop’s battery life. These are all quantifiable qualities: I can back up my appreciation with numbers and comparisons.

I also appreciate less-quantifiable things. I appreciate the way an illustrator uses facial expressions to convey emotion. I appreciate an author’s use of language to set a mood. I appreciate a composer’s ability to weave chords and melody together and a drummer’s ability to play the cuss out of some drums. These things are less quantifiable but still concrete to some extant.

All of these things add up to a healthy appreciation for something, and that is usually the biggest factor into whether I will recommend something for general consumption.

But it doesn’t mean I like it.

To me, liking something means I can connect with it on an emotional level. This connection is usually dependent on very personal factors: my temperament, my experiences, my ideals. Something I like will often remind me of or awaken in me a strong, unfulfilled desire for something, and it almost always ends up inspiring my imagination to go to new places.

It’s hard for me to recommend things on this basis alone. Usually if I like something, I’ll say things like “It’s not for everyone” or “Your mileage may vary.” I’m well aware of the personal nature of my feelings, and it’s hard to justify a recommendation simply based on that.

Maybe it’s a confidence problem: I’m not sure enough in my own taste to confidently recommend something. Maybe it’s a language issue, and I need to figure out the right words to use to differentiate my feelings. Or maybe it’s a false dichotomy, and I simply need to accept the fact that as a complex human being my opinions can be equally complex.

Maybe I just need to appreciate that I don’t always know why I like something.

It was a little over a year ago that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings laid out their strategy:

“The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us.”

So let’s have some fun. If we take the assumption that television will move online at face value,¹ what options could a television viewer have 5-10 years from now?

The New HBO: Netflix

Today, if you ask people what the best channel on cable is, they’ll probably say “HBO,” even if they don’t subscribe. Everyone knows HBO is where high-quality television like Game of Thrones and True Detective is shown. Likewise, if you ask people where the best online video is, they’ll probably say “Netflix,” thanks to original shows like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black.

Netflix has the market share now, and they’re also doing everything they can to stay foremost in people’s minds when it comes to television. I don’t see them losing this position as more and more video services pop up; their huge head start in content and technology should keep them in the lead. Provided, of course, they don’t do anything stupid.

The New Showtime: HBO

This doesn’t seem like it should happen. HBO is part of a much larger corporate behemoth and has had many profitable years of existence to build its content abilities. Also, according to numbers from SNL Kagan, HBO’s wholesale price (the price paid to HBO after the cable company takes its cut) is around the same price as Netflix’s price to its end users. In other words, if HBO were to instantly switch to a direct-to-customer model, they would only need to match Netflix on price to bring in the same revenue.

I see two major obstacles for HBO going forward. The first is their ties to the cable industry and the status quo. While the current system allows them to arbitrarily raise their prices without immediately alerting the end-users (a problem Netflix is running into), it also ties them closer to the existing pay-TV market and gives them less time to establish themselves firmly in the streaming market. The second problem is that their current forays into the streaming market have been met with technical glitches at the worst possible times. Normally for a tech-savvy media company, the technical problems are easy and the content problems are hard, but at the scale HBO would need to operate to compete on Netflix’s own turf, the technical problems are quite hard and could impact HBO’s bottom line more than they realize.

The New Network: Hulu

Hulu is most known for making that network TV readily available to internet viewers. Viewers can easily catch the last couple of episodes of their favorite network dramas and late-night talk shows for free on their computers as long as they are willing to tolerate a few commercials to do so. They also offer a premium service, Hulu Plus, that allows access to more episodes and shows as well as allowing viewing through smartphones, tablets, and set-top boxes. Unlike Netflix and HBO, however, Hulu Plus still contains commercials. While this seems antithetical to a premium service, it is practically no different than nearly every single channel available on cable.

I expect Hulu to continue to invest in its original programming, much like HBO and Netflix. Its focus on network-style programming gives it the ability to become the next mainstream-focused network. It remains to be seen, however, whether its decision to keep advertisements in its subscription offering will affect its ability to keep subscribers over the long term.

The New ESPN: ESPN

Other major sports providers, like NBC and FOX, have their own streaming video websites and apps. Unlike ESPN, however, these are relatively recent developments, and ESPN’s head start in building out its live streaming infrastructure shows. Throw in ESPN’s overwhelming mindshare in sports broadcasting, and they won’t be going anywhere in the new television world.

The New Cable: TV Everywhere

In the future, it’s not hard to imagine a “virtual cable” operator that has access to these apps as its primary service as opposed to a secondary add-on. This service probably wouldn’t be any cheaper than existing cable, but it could easily compete in other aspects such as ease-of-use, customer service, and a general awareness of its place in the new world that other cable providers would not have.

So why is this listed separately from HBO and ESPN? In actuality, it’s not that different, and those channels could easily be part of this “virtual cable” company. The difference with HBO and ESPN is the simple fact that those channels have the sheer brand power to break away from cable. It’s unlikely that TBS or Animal Planet could sell their channels outside of a bundle, but HBO and ESPN have such strong brands that not only could they easily sell access to their apps on their own, they could break their existing cable contracts to do so and not lose many (if any) cable affiliates in the process since no cable company wants to offer a service without those channels.

So what?

There’s a lot of what-ifs ahead in the world of television, but personally, I can’t wait to see what happens.

I am a big picture thinker and a perpetual dreamer. I love taking an idea and fleshing out the concept, and I’m continually inspired by the potential that today’s technology affords. If I’m in a room with a like-minded person, things can really take off.

So what would happen if you put me in a room with over one hundred?

My wife and I attended Greenville Grok, a conference designed around conversations and bringing people together. It’s put on by The Iron Yard, a local startup accelerator / code academy / coworking space, and it was started by Matthew Smith who realized he enjoyed the conversations and hangout times at conferences more than the keynotes and formal talks.

While there are a couple of keynote speakers at Grok, the emphasis is on what it calls “10-20s”: ten- or twenty-minute discussions on one topic in groups of eight to ten. My groups included software developers like me, graphic designers, artists, managers, and others; and our employers ranged from hot startups to established players to freelancers. While we all possessed an interest and affinity for technology, the similarities stopped there.

The opening keynote by Kristian Andersen set the tone for the discussions to follow. He started by dispelling the notion that people need to “find what they’re passionate about,” reminding us that the actual root of the word means “to suffer.” Finding what we are built for and willing to suffer for should be the real goal, not simply picking a topic we are excited about. The topic wove its way into the discussions to follow, introducing ourselves to our groups with “What’s your name, what do you do, and what do you suffer for?”

There were a number of good questions addressed in the breakout groups, including

• How does one deal with the transient nature of digital work?
• What can a developer do to keep his skills polished?
• If the internet disappeared tomorrow, what would you do?
• What's the place for liberal arts education in learning to code?

I was also able to talk through some some of my thoughts on Netflix and television, but my biggest personal insights came from bouncing off an idea I’ve had for an educational video series. Being able to get quick feedback to help round out my abstract idea has helped give me direction for this venture. (The actual execution, of course, is still up to me.)

The fringe aspects of the conference were good too. We elected not to participate in the BMW test track activity, but the Squarespace-sponsored “hangover lounge” had Mario Kart set up, so that helped. The Vagabond Barista had a pop-up shop set up, and it was nice to have his (very caffeinated) coffee in the mornings. Even the conference t-shirt was different: local print shop Dapper Ink brought a silkscreen rig to the conference and let attendees print their own copies of the t-shirt.

This is the second Grok I’ve attended, and I will continue to attend any chance I get. I learn best by participating (or maybe I just love running my mouth), so the format of this conference means I get much more than my money’s worth. The fact that it’s put on by cool people, has cool stuff, and was held in a cool building just makes it all the more enjoyable.

See you next year, everyone!

I would love for @dapperink to #pressmycards .