Great. More ephemeral, locked-in tales of the 21st-century human condition; less and less thought given to futurity (aside from the future profit margins of Big Content).
Great. More ephemeral, locked-in tales of the 21st-century human condition; less and less thought given to futurity (aside from the future profit margins of Big Content).
Think Square can save us from ourselves?
We may not have a tech industry to speak of, but one of our guys (RIP) coined the term blogosphere. Punching Kitty is like our very own Gawker. Part of Woot works here. The co-founder of Twitter started out here, too. The city's not exactly a hotbed of startups—but it could be.
1. Why is the signup page's security certificate invalid?
2. Is this in fact the Arch Reactor Twitter account? Why so quiet?
3. Why did you decide to hold meetings on Tuesday nights? Ever heard of LOST or V?
But as I noted in the comments, the problem with Curtis' argument can be summed up in two words: data portability.
When files are just databases routed through apps, how do you ensure your data is backed up? What happens if a user-inaccessible database gets corrupted? Pulling everything from databases and manipulating it in-app is great from a design standpoint, but not from a portability standpoint. That approach divorces people from their content and makes them (even more) reliant upon designers to anticipate their needs.
Also, contrary to the multistep process for dealing with files Curtis outlines, with current Windows or Apple computers, all a user really needs to locate is the file; double-click it and it'll (usually) open in the correct app. Right-click and you can see the apps the operating system suggests for it. Drag it to Dropbox or a flash drive and you have a copy. None of those things are terribly difficult.