A few months before Steve Jobs took to the Macworld stage unveil the iPhone—the device that’d take the PC’s former role as the computing device at the center of our lives—Bill Gates took to the CES stage to announce Microsoft’s device for the future of computing: the Home Server.
It wasn’t such a terrible idea, and if anything, was the first time Microsoft was hinting that, in the future, something other than the PC would be the center of your computing life. Data was now more important than the apps you used to manipulate said data, and with everything from your pictures to your purchased movies, music, and books being digital, you needed a lot of storage space to keep up with it all. Your laptop—even Microsoft saw that the future was mobile, even if they didn’t see that it’d be powered by tiny devices—didn’t have space to keep it all.
Thus the Home Server. Make a consumer-grade desktop PC without a screen, let it automatically backup all the PCs on the network and let you remotely access files, sell it for around $500, and Microsoft’s dream of “a PC in every home” could suddenly become “a server in ever home.” Said dream came complete with a children’s book to ostensibly sell the idea to parents who’d balk at the idea of dropping half-a-grand on a box that, for all intents and purposes, would appear to do nothing to the average user.
Meanwhile, we the people outsourced our backups to Backblaze and our file sharing to Dropbox, and iTunes and Amazon were just as happy to let us keep our digital purchases in the clouds to redownload on a whim. PCs were complicated enough to manage, and they sure weren’t fun—and a server was only more complexity that would only be welcomed by geeks. Smartphones quickly became the center of everyone’s digital lives, with our data stored in the imperceptible cloud, and Microsoft’s been trying to remind us ever since that we really, surely still need their software in our lives. Remind me who needed those massive storage banks at home?
And yet, the actual idea of the Home Server wasn’t such a bad idea. It wasn’t game changing on the scale of the iPhone, but the fact still is that backing up and sharing digital files is a pain. Upload speeds are still slow, most of the time, and who really wants to pay $100 a year for a 100Gb hard drive in the cloud when you could buy a 1Tb hard drive for less? But then, you’ll still want your files on the go (and at home) from your smartphone and tablet, and most people don’t really want to fiddle with a server (or otherwise they’d have already repurposed an old desktop into a Linux server).
That’s an overly lengthy intro to set the stage, but essentially it all boils down to the fact that backup and file sharing are still hard, and we need something simpler. Some way to share your files from a device you own solves the uploading speed problem, and if it could be as simple to use as Dropbox or Droplr, it’d surely be a winner.
That’s why I’m intrigued by the Sher.ly project. It’s an app that lets you share files from your own computer, NAS, existing online storage accounts, or the Sherly box—a Raspberry Pi-powered mini home server of sorts that can even run other Linux apps if you so wanted. It’s a self-hosted way to backup and store and share all the files you want, in an app that, at least at first glance, looks nice enough that you’d want to use it. And, yes, it’s got mobile apps, so it’s solving the file problem for the devices you’d really use, not just traditional computers—and here’s to hoping that, come iOS 8 release day, its iOS apps will integrate as a storage provider so you could easily use it to store files in any app.
Sherly’s a Kickstarter project by people with a proven track record, and it’s already passed its minimum goal with over twenty days to come. It should be coming, for real.
It could be another letdown in the attempt to make hosting your own files make sense, but I happen to think this one’s going to do better than the others because it’s simple. Dropbox made sense to everyone because it’s just a folder that automatically syncs and shares what’s in it—none of the complexity of other file sharing tools. iCloud has people backing up their iOS devices because it just automatically does it in the background. Sherly, while still being perhaps more aimed at the “Maker” crowd that’d be interested in making their own Raspberry Pi powered devices, looks simpler than any other personal server type system I’ve ever seen. It’s just about making it easy to privately share files—large files at that—with the devices you already use, without having to pay per-gigabyte in the cloud. And if you get their oh-so-cute Sherly box to store your files, it, too, promises to be so simple it only requires 3 taps to setup, and then will work as easily as any other cloud storage app.
Simple stuff is almost always better. I can’t wait to take the Sherly app for a spin.
One of the most difficult things about reviewing apps is that there’s some things about an app that just can’t be quantified. Feature lists might make one app look better than another, but specs never tell the full story. It’s true with computers, camera, smartphones, cars, and yes, it’s true with software.
And so I’m subjective. I’m most likely to write on Techinch about the software I love and rely on daily. I try out tons of apps, and the ones I stick with are the ones that fit my needs like a glove. Other apps might have more features or something that makes them appeal to others, but the apps I use daily have the stuff I need.
And that, perhaps, means I end up ignoring other apps. This was brought to my attention vividly when discussing the new OmniFocus 2 for Mac on Twitter. I mentioned at random that OmniFocus’ recurring task features were “better” than any other app I’d tried—and at the time, that was what I remembered from the last time I’d taken Things for a serious try at managing my tasks. Turns out, Things has far more granular options for recurring tasks than OmniFocus, but the reason I’d remembered it as being worse was because I don’t like the way it handles recurring tasks (i.e. by putting them all in the Scheduled list, which oddly only shows recurring tasks rather than any tasks with a due date).
Things didn’t fit what I needed. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad app, it just means that OmniFocus is better for my needs. And if I’m going to review a todo list app, I’m far more likely to share with you why I love the app I rely on daily, especially with the limited time I have to review apps. If I were to review Things, as I likely will when the next version comes out simply because it interests me, I’d be careful not to misrepresent its features as I accidentally did on Twitter—and then, after that, somehow I bet I’d go back to using OmniFocus since it’s just home to me.
Somehow this has been hanging over my head this week, and kept me from publishing my full review of OmniFocus 2. And that’s silly. We’re all opinionated, and yet, being opinionated can be a great thing. I really do try to keep my biases at bay when reviewing apps, but if there’s anything that’s going to get me motivated to hit Publish on a new article here, it’s going to be something that excited me—something that either solves a problem in a new and unique way (like the Keep Everything app I reviewed recently, even though it’s not exactly part of my daily workflow since I rely on Instapaper and Evernote already), or something that’s such a big part of my life (like OmniFocus or Ulysses III) for whatever reason that I can’t help but want to share it.
I’ll review other stuff, but it’s those things that excite me—that do something good enough that you can overlook the other features they don’t have—that keep me wanting to write about apps. Without Techinch being my full-time job, there’s only so many apps I can review, and I’m far more likely to want to take the time to write about an app when it’s something that really excites me enough that I want to share it with you.
OmniFocus 2 for Mac is finally here, and it’s great. I’ve written an in-depth tutorial on getting started with OmniFocus on Tuts+, so whether you’re 100% new to OmniFocus and would like help getting started with it, or have used it for years but want to learn your way around the new version, here’s the tutorial for you.
It’s a big day for Mac app releases; OmniFocus 2’s been announced for release today, and then Pixelmator 3.2. Pixelmator wasn’t nearly as overdue for a new version as OmniFocus; after all, v3 was just released 7 months ago, and a point release in January brought support for the Mac Pro and other improvements. v3 brought Layer Styles and and liquify tools, while v3.1 added support for 16-bit per channel color—but that latter most-coveted feature for pro photographers was only available on the Mac Pro. Now, that gap with Photoshop (and other competitors like GIMP and Acorn) is closed, as today’s release of v3.2 brings 16-bit per channel support to all Macs.
Along with that, you’ll find a much improved Repair tool in this update that is a much stronger rival to Photoshop’s Content Aware Fill. Select the Repair tool, draw over the objects you want to remove, and it’ll automagically try to replace them with the picture’s background. You can now change the size of the brush, along with its speed-vs-quality, and can get quite good results with it if you’re willing to tweak your brush and settings depending on the picture. I tried removing the parents in a screenshot of the picture used in Pixelmator’s Repair tool demo video to see if I could reproduce their results—removing the father was as simple as they showed, but removing the mother took about 4 tries before I got decent results. Either way, that’s still rather impressive.
In Photoshop, the thing I use Content Aware tools for most is for extending a pattern or section of a picture (for example, making a continuous rectangle pattern from a smaller square, or extending the sky upwards after expanding an image’s canvas). For that, I’ll select the area I want to add that pattern to, and delete it with Content Aware delete. 9 times out of 10, that works perfectly. In Pixelmator, you can use the Repair tool in much the same way, this time just drawing over the area you want to fill—but it won’t work if the area you’ve selected is transparent (the default if you’ve just extended your canvas). You’ll first need to fill that area with a color, and then select it with the Repair tool and let Pixelmator work its magic.
And then, there’s a final extra goodie: a Lock Layers option. This tiny little feature will make sure you don’t accidentally edit the layers that should already be finished, and is a handy tool that was again widely requested.
If you don’t already have a copy of Pixelmator, and aren’t already reliant on Photoshop, it’s the best $29.99 you could spend. It’s simply incredible how much of Photoshop’s functionality is packed into this tiny app these days.
Oh, and if you’re just getting started with Pixelmator, be sure to check out the new Tuts+ tutorials on Pixelmator. Pixelmator has enough of Photoshop’s features that you can follow many Photoshop tutorials in Pixelmator, but going through some Pixelmator-specific tutorials is a great way to get acquainted with its features.
Instagram got us all using filters on our photos, but its filters are often too heavy-handed, and if you just want to slightly tweak your color and brightness for a more natural photo, you’ll need to look elsewhere. The incredible VSCO Cam has been my photo editing app of choice for months now, with its vast range of filters and individual tweaks you can add to photos to make them far nicer than your original shots.
Then, the past couple of weeks, another app has stolen my heart: