A brief explanation of what I term 'LinkedIn Purity'
Contacts/Connections
To me, this is the second most important thing on LinkedIn, with your experience being number one.
With regards to your contacts, the purest form of a LinkedIn profile is one in which you know every single contact intimately, having worked with them enough to meet up for beers or go to their house for a BBQ.
The reality for most of us I suspect is we have several types of contacts that don't fall into this category, but are one or a mix of the following:
Vendors
Ex or current cow-orkers we can't stand (keep your enemies closer.)
Recruiters
Profile boosters(these are people who impress others that you know them, and to someone you are one too.)
Profile
Experience
How honest you are here decides your purity. Everyone writes the resume to put your accomplishments in the best possible light to remain competitive. So how much is fluff and how much is just sheer fabrication is almost impossible to determine for certain things. For instance, I could say I was instrumental in implementing XYZ project at ABC company, but how do you confirm this? It's one of those grey areas for most smaller companies/projects. I mean it would probably be fairly easy to figure out if you really were the inventor of the iPhone.
Recommendations
All your recommendations have been written out of shear altruism and have never been solicited. They have not been written out of guilt or perceived obligation. They are all worthy of printing out on gold leaf adorned heavy stock paper and framed. This is true of both those you have written and those that have been written about you.
The reality is, sometimes people solicit and we comply. Sometimes we throw people a bone for various reasons. And we will also approve a recommendation even though it appears that it was written by a 12 year old on NyQuil.
Skills & Expertise Endorsements
These are similar if lesser in impact than a recommendation. And it is infinitely easier to endorse someone with a click than it is to write a paragraph long recommendation. The purity comes from refraining from endorsing those you either don't fully believe they hold/master a skill or accepting a skill endorsement from someone you either don't know well enough, or wasn't working with you by time you acquired the skill. See my post on endorsements for more details.
Groups and Associations
How many groups can one be associated with? I am guessing it is only a few, not dozens as I have seen on some profiles. Update: So I just read up on some LinkedIn tips and it seems that groups provide people with a loophole to contact someone. If you and they share a group, you don't need to be a 1st degree connection to contact them. I have seen mostly recruiters and consultant types with the long lists of groups, so now this makes perfect sense. So in the context of purity, less is more.
v. to understand intuitively,to experience enjoyment. A Unix-like operating system.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
LinkedIn Skill Endorsements
Daniel's Unofficial Guide to LinkedIn Skill and Expertise Endorsements
I have seen no official (or unofficial for that matter) guidelines on how to use the skills and expertise endorsements. So I am going to outline how I see them and how I judge whether I will or won't endorse someone for a particular skill.
I have read a lot of derisive or dismissive comments about the system, but I am not sure where that is coming from. I find the skill endorsements just another aspect to LinkedIn, which shouldn't ever be your sole deciding factor on a hire or engagement with an individual. To listen to some of the complaints you would think LinkedIn adopted Facebook's privacy policies and opted you back in to sharing to the world.
Here are some choice words/phrases:
thoughtless endeavor
clutters profiles
meaningless
painting by numbers
zero credibility
virtually worthless
complete waste of bandwidth
And this is only from one page! I think maybe some people should get more fiber in their diets.
Anyway, I can see some benefits to the system. For instance, if someone is marketing themselves as an NFS Guru with 30 years experience, yet only has the skill NFS endorsed by one person...that raises a red flag. More than likely, the endorsements are going to reflect the longevity of the skill...or at least one hopes.
There exists the possibility of keyword searches by recruiters or others interested in finding someone with a certain skill. I don't know if the search functionality exists(I only have a basic account), but if you have 'expertise requests' listed under your contact options I would think it makes sense to be well endorsed for specific skills. Imagine a scenario where an individual or company is having trouble with an NFS implementation. They search on LinkedIn for NFS Guru and find our friend above who has the 'expertise requests' contact option set and has 45 endorsements over the span of his career for this skill. I would think that is a benefit.
Also, you are in complete control of what endorsements are displayed on your profile page. Got an endorsement from someone you don't know?(Which also begs the question, how or why are you "linked" to that person? It's what I call your 'LinkedIn Purity') Than just delete the endorsement. No point in whinging on about it.
On the Integrity of My Endorsements
I know people live and learn and gain skills over time, but when I see someone with a listed skill for something that they famously did not possess when I worked with them, I chuckle. For instance, a former cow-orker lists 'Disaster Recovery' as a skill, yet the one thing that stands out for me is his 'engineering' of a system with zero redundancy, zero backup strategy, very little documentation and questionable source code on a platform not supported by our team.
The fact it became a key piece of a much larger system tied to revenue really drives it home. But here is the rub; he may have built the system as a proof-of-concept and people that didn't know better rolled it out before it was fully fleshed out. Either way, I can not in good conscience endorse him for this skill. He may have learned his lesson, and now he makes sure that every ounce of work has a full DR workup, but since I didn't witness this, I will just skip this one.
I also see skills for people that I am pretty sure they have, but either they gained that skill after we worked together or I just have never experienced it first hand. In both those circumstances, I will not endorse. Well, for the most part. There are certain skills that I have not personally witnessed(someone setting up a SAN for instance) but I know that this person has done it successfully on several occasions. Depending on my relationship I will probably endorse them.
While I have yet to receive any solicitations for endorsements, when it does happen I am very unlikely to answer unless I have legitimately overlooked the person or a skill that is very core to how I view them. This is also part of the LinkedIn Purity.
Feature Requests
It would be nice if you could indicate the level of confidence you have in a person's skill or expertise and how much personal experience you have with this person's skill/expertise, like a star rating or color code(ie, terror alert?) Sometimes it is obvious. If Bill Smith in marketing endorses you for NFS, that is not even in the same league as an endorsement by Bill Joy.
Having a "Don't show me this again" button on the endorsements would be nice as well. Anyway to ack you saw it, it doesn't apply or you don't like that person and will never endorse them for anything but a lobotomy.
I have seen no official (or unofficial for that matter) guidelines on how to use the skills and expertise endorsements. So I am going to outline how I see them and how I judge whether I will or won't endorse someone for a particular skill.
I have read a lot of derisive or dismissive comments about the system, but I am not sure where that is coming from. I find the skill endorsements just another aspect to LinkedIn, which shouldn't ever be your sole deciding factor on a hire or engagement with an individual. To listen to some of the complaints you would think LinkedIn adopted Facebook's privacy policies and opted you back in to sharing to the world.
Here are some choice words/phrases:
thoughtless endeavor
clutters profiles
meaningless
painting by numbers
zero credibility
virtually worthless
complete waste of bandwidth
And this is only from one page! I think maybe some people should get more fiber in their diets.
Anyway, I can see some benefits to the system. For instance, if someone is marketing themselves as an NFS Guru with 30 years experience, yet only has the skill NFS endorsed by one person...that raises a red flag. More than likely, the endorsements are going to reflect the longevity of the skill...or at least one hopes.
There exists the possibility of keyword searches by recruiters or others interested in finding someone with a certain skill. I don't know if the search functionality exists(I only have a basic account), but if you have 'expertise requests' listed under your contact options I would think it makes sense to be well endorsed for specific skills. Imagine a scenario where an individual or company is having trouble with an NFS implementation. They search on LinkedIn for NFS Guru and find our friend above who has the 'expertise requests' contact option set and has 45 endorsements over the span of his career for this skill. I would think that is a benefit.
Also, you are in complete control of what endorsements are displayed on your profile page. Got an endorsement from someone you don't know?(Which also begs the question, how or why are you "linked" to that person? It's what I call your 'LinkedIn Purity') Than just delete the endorsement. No point in whinging on about it.
On the Integrity of My Endorsements
I know people live and learn and gain skills over time, but when I see someone with a listed skill for something that they famously did not possess when I worked with them, I chuckle. For instance, a former cow-orker lists 'Disaster Recovery' as a skill, yet the one thing that stands out for me is his 'engineering' of a system with zero redundancy, zero backup strategy, very little documentation and questionable source code on a platform not supported by our team.
The fact it became a key piece of a much larger system tied to revenue really drives it home. But here is the rub; he may have built the system as a proof-of-concept and people that didn't know better rolled it out before it was fully fleshed out. Either way, I can not in good conscience endorse him for this skill. He may have learned his lesson, and now he makes sure that every ounce of work has a full DR workup, but since I didn't witness this, I will just skip this one.
I also see skills for people that I am pretty sure they have, but either they gained that skill after we worked together or I just have never experienced it first hand. In both those circumstances, I will not endorse. Well, for the most part. There are certain skills that I have not personally witnessed(someone setting up a SAN for instance) but I know that this person has done it successfully on several occasions. Depending on my relationship I will probably endorse them.
While I have yet to receive any solicitations for endorsements, when it does happen I am very unlikely to answer unless I have legitimately overlooked the person or a skill that is very core to how I view them. This is also part of the LinkedIn Purity.
Feature Requests
It would be nice if you could indicate the level of confidence you have in a person's skill or expertise and how much personal experience you have with this person's skill/expertise, like a star rating or color code(ie, terror alert?) Sometimes it is obvious. If Bill Smith in marketing endorses you for NFS, that is not even in the same league as an endorsement by Bill Joy.
Having a "Don't show me this again" button on the endorsements would be nice as well. Anyway to ack you saw it, it doesn't apply or you don't like that person and will never endorse them for anything but a lobotomy.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Which box?
After a year of flirting with re-employment in a traditional employee/employer relationship, I suspect that a lot of employers may be looking to the wrong people to bring them what they desire.
While at Los Angeles Times/Tribune, my experience with the existing staff was that they were firmly living 'inside the box.' Once Sam Zell and his minions tore away the chains of oppression and kicked open the door to freedom, there was a collective sigh and much joy. The reality is very few rushed to embrace that freedom and many did not even know what to do with it as they stared at it for the first time.
My colleagues and I were dumbfounded that after years of complaining how they didn't have the freedom to even air ideas, let alone try and implement them, now that they were staring at the wide open space they were not prepared to actually explore it. The realization came to me later that the type of person that would not only make the cut to get hired here, but had made it for years in the previous culture, were wholly and completely not qualified to survive in this new environment.
As we were lured under the auspices of 'greenfield' and building a dotcom with the financial backing of a corporation with 22,000 employees, this was very appealing to most of us, if not all of us. But we were all from Internet companies and were used to creative thinking, energizing workspaces and the other perks standard in the dotcom world. The environment we encountered was the exact opposite. The walls were biege, the trim was a dark brown and most offices had huge doors that locked. While we managed to breathe some life into our floor, this office had not been remodeled for decades(I assume.) It felt like a bank as featured in every 70's era movie. And everyone, existing technology team members included, wore very formal office attire. Shiny shoes, crisp starched collars, probably sock suspenders, etc. And I will only speak for myself and say I hated it and it was depressing, but many felt the same way.
So when you think of the type of person that can show up to work, day in and day out, to that type of physical environment, and the matching 1970's management style, you think of Milton from Office Space. So when the Zellites demanded 'innovation' it was met with a resounding thud.
(In all fairness, there were a handful of people that were not this bad, but when you try to implement a culture change that big in that short amount of time, it really was a slog for those people.)
So why would you ask for 'outside the box' thinking from someone who is firmly residing inside the box? Wouldn't it be far better to ask someone not confined to said box for their thoughts?
My career, much like my life, has taken a non-linear path. And I don't think or live in the typical box. So when you ask if I think 'outside the box' understand when I reply "Which box?"
Some further reading:
"The entire “social media” marketplace is now taking viewers, and ad dollars, from traditional media bringing the limelight to CEOs at Facebook, Twitter and Linked-in. While newspaper companies like Tribune Corp., NYT, Dow Jones and Washington Post have faltered, pop publisher Arianna Huffington created $315M of value by hiring a group of bloggers to populate the on-line news tabloid Huffington Post. And Apple is close to becoming the world’s most valuable publicly traded company on the back of new product innovations.
But, asking again, would your company hire the leaders of these companies? Would it hire the Vice-President’s, Directors and Managers? Or would you consider them too avant-garde? "
From "Why Steve Jobs couldn't find a job today" - Forbes
While at Los Angeles Times/Tribune, my experience with the existing staff was that they were firmly living 'inside the box.' Once Sam Zell and his minions tore away the chains of oppression and kicked open the door to freedom, there was a collective sigh and much joy. The reality is very few rushed to embrace that freedom and many did not even know what to do with it as they stared at it for the first time.
My colleagues and I were dumbfounded that after years of complaining how they didn't have the freedom to even air ideas, let alone try and implement them, now that they were staring at the wide open space they were not prepared to actually explore it. The realization came to me later that the type of person that would not only make the cut to get hired here, but had made it for years in the previous culture, were wholly and completely not qualified to survive in this new environment.
As we were lured under the auspices of 'greenfield' and building a dotcom with the financial backing of a corporation with 22,000 employees, this was very appealing to most of us, if not all of us. But we were all from Internet companies and were used to creative thinking, energizing workspaces and the other perks standard in the dotcom world. The environment we encountered was the exact opposite. The walls were biege, the trim was a dark brown and most offices had huge doors that locked. While we managed to breathe some life into our floor, this office had not been remodeled for decades(I assume.) It felt like a bank as featured in every 70's era movie. And everyone, existing technology team members included, wore very formal office attire. Shiny shoes, crisp starched collars, probably sock suspenders, etc. And I will only speak for myself and say I hated it and it was depressing, but many felt the same way.
So when you think of the type of person that can show up to work, day in and day out, to that type of physical environment, and the matching 1970's management style, you think of Milton from Office Space. So when the Zellites demanded 'innovation' it was met with a resounding thud.
(In all fairness, there were a handful of people that were not this bad, but when you try to implement a culture change that big in that short amount of time, it really was a slog for those people.)
 |
| http://www.clowncrack.com/about/ |
So why would you ask for 'outside the box' thinking from someone who is firmly residing inside the box? Wouldn't it be far better to ask someone not confined to said box for their thoughts?
My career, much like my life, has taken a non-linear path. And I don't think or live in the typical box. So when you ask if I think 'outside the box' understand when I reply "Which box?"
Some further reading:
"The entire “social media” marketplace is now taking viewers, and ad dollars, from traditional media bringing the limelight to CEOs at Facebook, Twitter and Linked-in. While newspaper companies like Tribune Corp., NYT, Dow Jones and Washington Post have faltered, pop publisher Arianna Huffington created $315M of value by hiring a group of bloggers to populate the on-line news tabloid Huffington Post. And Apple is close to becoming the world’s most valuable publicly traded company on the back of new product innovations.
But, asking again, would your company hire the leaders of these companies? Would it hire the Vice-President’s, Directors and Managers? Or would you consider them too avant-garde? "
From "Why Steve Jobs couldn't find a job today" - Forbes
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Yelp strong-arm tactics?
So, after I created the blog post about the Yelp advertising blunder, I sent the link to a Yelp employee I met a couple of months ago to let him know there was a problem. Never heard back from him so I don't know if it made it through to support.
Today I get an email from Yelp HQ telling me this:
Hi Daniel,
We wanted to let you know that we've removed your review of Northeast Storage. Our Support team has determined that it falls outside our Content Guidelines (http://www.yelp.com/guidelines) because it lacks a firsthand customer experience.
We hope you will continue to participate on Yelp, while keeping in mind our Content Guidelines.
Removed Content:
Nice facility. Will update when I have more details(they were closed when I got there.)
Regards,
Fritz
Yelp User Support
San Francisco, California
Ok, seems a little odd that for all the errors, duplicate listings and geo-location mismatches on Yelp in El Paso they would pull my review. I mean, it isn't like I didn't visit the location and I did take 5 pictures...and my review was a 3 star and was pretty fair based on what I could see. And really, the only reason I wrote the review is because in order to add a Yelp location to a list, you have to write a review! Those are Yelp's rules not mine.
Here is the location: http://www.yelp.com/biz/northeast-storage-el-paso
Here is my list of (now 19) storage facilities that I recently visited and took pictures of as well as reviewed, based on interaction with the staff.
http://www.yelp.com/list/self-storage-in-northeast-el-paso-el-paso
I haven't read the Content Guidelines recently, but now I am wondering if I didn't rent a storage unit, does that disqualify all my reviews on the grounds of 'lacking a firsthand customer experience'? Also, now there is a list of storage units that this facility is not on, which makes it look like I excluded it. That seems counter intuitive to me...if I were a business owner I would probably want to be on that list.
I bet I could go find several dozen reviews that are of the "And when we got up to the line, it was so long we left" or "I would never eat at a place that serves baby chicken eyeballs" type.
Just seems odd that for all the neglect of Yelp El Paso, that they singled out this rather benign review of a storage facility.
I somehow doubt that someone flagged my review.
But, I did flag this review:
Because the guy didn't actually go here, but probably a barbershop in the same strip mall. I asked the owner who I have personally been getting a haircut from for years how long she has been there and she said 6 years. She doesn't even do nails, I even mention it in my review which I wrote 3 years earlier!
I am sure the Yelp filter will catch it eventually, just based on the fact that he has only written one review and it is a 1-star.
But as of this posting, it is still up.
This just smells like maybe I was singled out for blogging about how over-valued I think advertising on Yelp is. Or maybe it was just coincidence.
Well, I guess you get what you pay for. Go Yelp!
Today I get an email from Yelp HQ telling me this:
Hi Daniel,
We wanted to let you know that we've removed your review of Northeast Storage. Our Support team has determined that it falls outside our Content Guidelines (http://www.yelp.com/guidelines) because it lacks a firsthand customer experience.
We hope you will continue to participate on Yelp, while keeping in mind our Content Guidelines.
Removed Content:
Nice facility. Will update when I have more details(they were closed when I got there.)
Regards,
Fritz
Yelp User Support
San Francisco, California
Ok, seems a little odd that for all the errors, duplicate listings and geo-location mismatches on Yelp in El Paso they would pull my review. I mean, it isn't like I didn't visit the location and I did take 5 pictures...and my review was a 3 star and was pretty fair based on what I could see. And really, the only reason I wrote the review is because in order to add a Yelp location to a list, you have to write a review! Those are Yelp's rules not mine.
Here is the location: http://www.yelp.com/biz/northeast-storage-el-paso
Here is my list of (now 19) storage facilities that I recently visited and took pictures of as well as reviewed, based on interaction with the staff.
http://www.yelp.com/list/self-storage-in-northeast-el-paso-el-paso
I haven't read the Content Guidelines recently, but now I am wondering if I didn't rent a storage unit, does that disqualify all my reviews on the grounds of 'lacking a firsthand customer experience'? Also, now there is a list of storage units that this facility is not on, which makes it look like I excluded it. That seems counter intuitive to me...if I were a business owner I would probably want to be on that list.
I bet I could go find several dozen reviews that are of the "And when we got up to the line, it was so long we left" or "I would never eat at a place that serves baby chicken eyeballs" type.
Just seems odd that for all the neglect of Yelp El Paso, that they singled out this rather benign review of a storage facility.
I somehow doubt that someone flagged my review.
But, I did flag this review:
Because the guy didn't actually go here, but probably a barbershop in the same strip mall. I asked the owner who I have personally been getting a haircut from for years how long she has been there and she said 6 years. She doesn't even do nails, I even mention it in my review which I wrote 3 years earlier!
I am sure the Yelp filter will catch it eventually, just based on the fact that he has only written one review and it is a 1-star.
But as of this posting, it is still up.
This just smells like maybe I was singled out for blogging about how over-valued I think advertising on Yelp is. Or maybe it was just coincidence.
Well, I guess you get what you pay for. Go Yelp!
Friday, November 2, 2012
Yelp advertising gone wild!
This is classic! Not only is his review not helpful for Landry's, but it is also filtered on their page! I chuckled at this one.
Landry's Seafood, El Paso, TX
Landry's Seafood, El Paso, TX
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
iPhoto delete bug fixed
So with an iPhoto library north of 60,000, I decided it was time to split the library up for performance sake. Problem was that iPhoto had a ~100 item delete bug. Anything more than 100 items would cause a hang. This is pretty well documented and I couldn't ever figure out a way to do delete batches of 100 with Automator. And not knowing how the underlying database of iPhoto works, I wasn't really willing to shell script it at a file level. We are talking 12 years of photos, and while I have multiple backups/exports in multiple geographical regions, I am still paranoid. It's in my job description(whatever that is these days ;-)
So with the latest iPhoto update, apparently they fixed it! Right now, I have deleted in batches of 100+, 250+, 1500+, 2500+, 4500+ and the latest of 11,500+ worked. With the old behaviour the only way you knew it was hung was the lack of CPU usage. After 20-30 seconds, the CPU would just drop off and the "Emptying iPhoto Trash" progress window would just spin.
After a few times having to Kill -9 iPhoto (Force Quit) there would invariably be some corruption. And multiple repairs/rebuilds and file level permission repairs later, I was still stuck with the 100 limit. So I would lose interest and keep putting it off.
So with the latest iPhoto update, apparently they fixed it! Right now, I have deleted in batches of 100+, 250+, 1500+, 2500+, 4500+ and the latest of 11,500+ worked. With the old behaviour the only way you knew it was hung was the lack of CPU usage. After 20-30 seconds, the CPU would just drop off and the "Emptying iPhoto Trash" progress window would just spin.
After a few times having to Kill -9 iPhoto (Force Quit) there would invariably be some corruption. And multiple repairs/rebuilds and file level permission repairs later, I was still stuck with the 100 limit. So I would lose interest and keep putting it off.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Apple and Planned Obsolescence
The story so far; We purchased the iPad 1 when it first came out(May 25, 2010 to be exact and bought the most expensive model too...$1049.00 after the extended support and tax! Because I was trying to future-proof the purchase...nice.) We have a second generation Apple TV and were planning on giving them both to my mother-in-law so she would have a simple method for email, web and games. Also, with our Apple ID and Photo Stream, she gets our pictures automatically too. But with iOS 6 and Mountain Lion, we can set up shared Photo Streams, which will be better for a couple of reasons. One, so we don't have to leave her with our password(App updates) and so she won't have to get all 4 blurry shots and 1 good one. And just in case I take any inappropriate photos, like naked bicycle day in San Francisco...old fat guys and their weenies...funny to post on Facebook, but not so much so for Mom.
So the problem; iPad 1 is already obsolete and won't be getting iOS 6. And I just updated Apple TV which killed Photo Stream. The published solution is to open Settings-->iCloud on your iOS device and accept the new terms that will pop up. But the new terms aren't popping up and I suspect that they won't on the iPad since it won't be getting iOS 6. And the solution I suspect, is to upgrade our iPhones, but because the maps issue has not been ironed out, we have been holding off.
So because we have iPhones(version 4) we will probably be able to solve this once we upgrade.
BUT, if Mom had only bought an iPad and Apple TV she would now be out of luck! Now for older folks who are retired and have a fixed income, rushing out to buy the latest iPad at 1G a pop is a lot of money. And no way am I jailbreaking it.
Hopefully, they will fix this soon, but in the meantime I submitted a bug report and encourage anyone who also has this problem to do likewise:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/appletv.html
UPDATES:
October 1, 2012 - Created a new Apple ID for Mom. Had to login via iTunes to activate the account to work on Apple TV. Also had to login with that same account for iCloud services on her account on my MacBook to accept the new terms of service. Not sure if it would all work if I had logged into iTunes on the iPad and iCloud on iPad. Now we have to upgrade to iOS 6 and Mountain Lion on our Macs to use the shared Photo Stream feature. Mom is all set now that the Apple TV and the iPad are using her new ID.
Also, upgraded my iPhone 4 to iOS 6 to set up a shared Photo Stream. While it's not as convenient as having just one Photo Stream, having the extra control never is. (Grammar note: While 'is' is not a preposition, and it is pretty well accepted that my use of it here is ok...I still cringe a little.)
October 2, 2012 - So the shared photo streams work only on devices that support them. For some reason I thought that if the ID we used for Mom was the one we shared our Photo Stream with, they would just show up in her Photo Stream. Not the case. On the Apple TV the photos show up, but on the iPad with iOS 5 they do not. You can't tell me that to implement this on a piece of hardware as simple as a slightly older than 2 years old tablet is too difficult. So our work around without buying her the latest iPad, will be to periodically login to her account on my laptop to allow the shared Photo Stream photos to import to her native ID Photo Stream. So she will have duplicates on the Apple TV(one for her Photo Stream and one for the shared Photo Stream) and all the photos on the iPad. She hasn't been using the Apple TV at all anyway, so we might not leave that with her. We will start introducing her to it like we did with the iPad and see how it goes. She uses the iPad daily for games, but never looks at her email. Probably better that way...I would love to not be a slave to email.
So the problem; iPad 1 is already obsolete and won't be getting iOS 6. And I just updated Apple TV which killed Photo Stream. The published solution is to open Settings-->iCloud on your iOS device and accept the new terms that will pop up. But the new terms aren't popping up and I suspect that they won't on the iPad since it won't be getting iOS 6. And the solution I suspect, is to upgrade our iPhones, but because the maps issue has not been ironed out, we have been holding off.
So because we have iPhones(version 4) we will probably be able to solve this once we upgrade.
BUT, if Mom had only bought an iPad and Apple TV she would now be out of luck! Now for older folks who are retired and have a fixed income, rushing out to buy the latest iPad at 1G a pop is a lot of money. And no way am I jailbreaking it.
Hopefully, they will fix this soon, but in the meantime I submitted a bug report and encourage anyone who also has this problem to do likewise:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/appletv.html
UPDATES:
October 1, 2012 - Created a new Apple ID for Mom. Had to login via iTunes to activate the account to work on Apple TV. Also had to login with that same account for iCloud services on her account on my MacBook to accept the new terms of service. Not sure if it would all work if I had logged into iTunes on the iPad and iCloud on iPad. Now we have to upgrade to iOS 6 and Mountain Lion on our Macs to use the shared Photo Stream feature. Mom is all set now that the Apple TV and the iPad are using her new ID.
Also, upgraded my iPhone 4 to iOS 6 to set up a shared Photo Stream. While it's not as convenient as having just one Photo Stream, having the extra control never is. (Grammar note: While 'is' is not a preposition, and it is pretty well accepted that my use of it here is ok...I still cringe a little.)
October 2, 2012 - So the shared photo streams work only on devices that support them. For some reason I thought that if the ID we used for Mom was the one we shared our Photo Stream with, they would just show up in her Photo Stream. Not the case. On the Apple TV the photos show up, but on the iPad with iOS 5 they do not. You can't tell me that to implement this on a piece of hardware as simple as a slightly older than 2 years old tablet is too difficult. So our work around without buying her the latest iPad, will be to periodically login to her account on my laptop to allow the shared Photo Stream photos to import to her native ID Photo Stream. So she will have duplicates on the Apple TV(one for her Photo Stream and one for the shared Photo Stream) and all the photos on the iPad. She hasn't been using the Apple TV at all anyway, so we might not leave that with her. We will start introducing her to it like we did with the iPad and see how it goes. She uses the iPad daily for games, but never looks at her email. Probably better that way...I would love to not be a slave to email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)