As somebody who reads this blog, you probably already know that WWDC tickets are on sale. I wouldn't expect them to be available long. Apple has taken some steps to slow down the sales, such as implementing a developer membership requirement and a one-ticket-per-individual-member and five-ticket-per-organization limit on tickets, but I still expect them to go fast (I've heard rumors they're sold out, but the purchase link still shows for me).
I am glad to see that they've lowered the attendee age to thirteen this year. In the past, they allowed under-age people on an individual ad-hoc basis and prior to 2011, it had never been a problem. But, there were at least two heart-breaking stories last year of under-eighteen developers who bought tickets and then weren't allowed to go. Somebody fairly high up at Apple decided that with the kurfuffle over how fast the tickets sold out, they just couldn't bend the rules that year. They did refund money, but still… the situation didn't sit right with me, so I'm glad they've changed the official policy to allow younger developers in.
I'm currently on vacation, but when I get back, I'll blow the dust off my "First Timers's Guide to WWDC". There are definitely a few things from last year's post that need updating and revising for 2012, but I'm not doing it on vacation. :)
Finally, I've gotten a lot of questions about the annual bus pilgrimage to Apple's Company Store on the Sunday before WWDC starts. Honestly, I don't think I'm doing it this year. I know I've said that the last few years, and I know Scott will try to talk me into it by offering to do all the hard work again, but I really mean it this time. Even with Scott doing the arrangements, managing two trips of three buses each down to Cupertino and back really shoots a hole in my first day on the left coast and takes a toll on me. While I enjoy meeting devs, the sheer number I meet on the pilgrimage is overwhelming and it becomes nearly impossible to remember anyone new I meet, let alone everyone. This year, I'm thinking of a more leisurely Sunday - catching up with some old friends and meeting some new ones over a relaxing drink or three and maybe a meal. I'd really like to start the week not already in a sleep deficit if possible. It's probably not, but I'm going to give it a shot.
Anyway, back to vacation for me, but I hope to see you in San Francisco.
Showing posts with label iPHone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPHone. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Monday, October 10, 2011
Disappointing
So, like others, I was tempted to write a defense of the iPhone 4S after all the pundits and naysayers came out last week calling the iPhone 4S "disappointing". I'm glad I never found the time. As it turns out the iPhone 4s doesn't need anybody to stand up for it.
1,000,000 phones sold on the first day of pre-orders. That's 400,000 more than the iPhone 4.
And, that's not counting the number that will sell on October 14th when they arrive at the Apple Stores in 7 countries.
There's also a large batch of countries that don't get the phone until October 28, and a whopping 40 more countries (including China, where new Apple Stores have been shattering sales records lately) that won't get the iPhone 4s until some time in December.
Yeah. Disappointing. You guys in the media sure nailed that one.
1,000,000 phones sold on the first day of pre-orders. That's 400,000 more than the iPhone 4.
And, that's not counting the number that will sell on October 14th when they arrive at the Apple Stores in 7 countries.
There's also a large batch of countries that don't get the phone until October 28, and a whopping 40 more countries (including China, where new Apple Stores have been shattering sales records lately) that won't get the iPhone 4s until some time in December.
Yeah. Disappointing. You guys in the media sure nailed that one.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
3D Game and Graphics Engines
One thing that I get asked about a lot is whether you should use a game or graphics engine instead of learning OpenGL ES. Often, these emails are prefaced by a statement about how hard graphics programming. I've had to answer this question enough times now that it seems like a good topic for a blog post.
Honestly, I find it kind of hard to answer, because I don't see the "using an engine" and "learning graphics programming" as being distinct or mutually exclusive approaches. While a good game or graphics engine will handle a lot of the more gnarly programming tasks for you and shorten your development time, you still need to understand the underlying concepts to build anything of any complexity.
All of these engines are built on top of OpenGL (and/or DirectX if they support Windows), and are subject to the same limitations and strengths. Not understanding, at least at some level, how these lower-level graphics libraries work and the basic maths of 3D programming will eventually hold you back.
But… that doesn't necessarily mean you need to learn OpenGL before you can start using these tools effectively. You don't. It's just that some of the difficult, sticky math and concepts that might be scaring you away from OpenGL are still there (though better hidden), and you may well still have to deal with them at some point if you're doing the coding on the game (as opposed to just creating assets or doing level design).
Here's kind of a simple nutshell rule:
So, when shouldn't you use an existing engine if your goal is to make a game and not to try and be the next John Carmack? Almost never. Rolling your own game engine should be a labor of love. It's got to be an itch you can't scratch; the kind of desire that I probably couldn't talk you out of anyway. Otherwise, it's just a waste of your time.
What about when there just isn't an engine that works for what you want to do?
Honestly, that's not all that likely in this day and age, but even if it is, you're far better off starting with an existing engine and then modifying it to meet your needs.
From a business and financial perspective, it's almost never better to start from scratch. Even many of the AAA commercial game engines are derivatives of other engines. To give an example: Valve's Source Engine, is derived from their older Goldsource Engine, which itself was forked from the Quake Engine back around 1996.
Though there are quite a few game engines around, a very large percentage of high-end commercial games, both console and PC, are based on either the Unreal engine or the Quake engine or one of their derivatives. If you throw in a handful of other engines, like the CryEngine, you've probably covered all but a few outliers.
If it's not cost effective for large, multi-person development teams with multi-million dollar budgets to develop their own game engines, it's probably not the best choice for individual indie developers or small shops.
So, don't reinvent the wheel. Use an engine and stand on the shoulders of John Carmack and others like him. Don't spend your time trying to solve problems that are long-solved. Just be aware that using an engine can't completely eliminate the need to learn a little math or to understand the underlying concepts.
I won't be discussing the UDK, even though it's a phenomenal engine, because it requires using Windows for many tasks, and I don't want to spend time in Windows. If you've got both a Mac and a Windows machine, however, and don't mind splitting time between OS X and Windows, you might want to check it out. A lot of time and brainpower has gone into getting the UDK to have incredible performance on iOS and the license terms have been changed to be much more friendly to small indie shops ($99 plus 25% of royalties after the first $50,000).
Honestly, I find it kind of hard to answer, because I don't see the "using an engine" and "learning graphics programming" as being distinct or mutually exclusive approaches. While a good game or graphics engine will handle a lot of the more gnarly programming tasks for you and shorten your development time, you still need to understand the underlying concepts to build anything of any complexity.
All of these engines are built on top of OpenGL (and/or DirectX if they support Windows), and are subject to the same limitations and strengths. Not understanding, at least at some level, how these lower-level graphics libraries work and the basic maths of 3D programming will eventually hold you back.
But… that doesn't necessarily mean you need to learn OpenGL before you can start using these tools effectively. You don't. It's just that some of the difficult, sticky math and concepts that might be scaring you away from OpenGL are still there (though better hidden), and you may well still have to deal with them at some point if you're doing the coding on the game (as opposed to just creating assets or doing level design).
Here's kind of a simple nutshell rule:
If you love graphics programming or are fascinated by it, then study OpenGL ES and the underlying maths and forget about using the engines at first (though studying their source is a great way to learn). There's always going to be work for good graphics programmers and you can't put a price tag on doing what you love.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to make a game or other graphics-heavy application, and graphics programming is just a means to that end, then use an engine, because it will shorten the amount of work you have to do tremendously, which inherently increases your chances of making money because time is money and there's never enough of it.
So, when shouldn't you use an existing engine if your goal is to make a game and not to try and be the next John Carmack? Almost never. Rolling your own game engine should be a labor of love. It's got to be an itch you can't scratch; the kind of desire that I probably couldn't talk you out of anyway. Otherwise, it's just a waste of your time.
What about when there just isn't an engine that works for what you want to do?
Honestly, that's not all that likely in this day and age, but even if it is, you're far better off starting with an existing engine and then modifying it to meet your needs.
From a business and financial perspective, it's almost never better to start from scratch. Even many of the AAA commercial game engines are derivatives of other engines. To give an example: Valve's Source Engine, is derived from their older Goldsource Engine, which itself was forked from the Quake Engine back around 1996.
Though there are quite a few game engines around, a very large percentage of high-end commercial games, both console and PC, are based on either the Unreal engine or the Quake engine or one of their derivatives. If you throw in a handful of other engines, like the CryEngine, you've probably covered all but a few outliers.
If it's not cost effective for large, multi-person development teams with multi-million dollar budgets to develop their own game engines, it's probably not the best choice for individual indie developers or small shops.
So, don't reinvent the wheel. Use an engine and stand on the shoulders of John Carmack and others like him. Don't spend your time trying to solve problems that are long-solved. Just be aware that using an engine can't completely eliminate the need to learn a little math or to understand the underlying concepts.
Engines
It just so happens that for a number of proposals I've done lately, I've been looking at game engines in some depth. I'm not going to do "reviews" per se, but over the next few weeks, I will try and post my thoughts about several of the engines available for iOS, including Unity3D, Sio2, Ogre3D, and Cocos3D.I won't be discussing the UDK, even though it's a phenomenal engine, because it requires using Windows for many tasks, and I don't want to spend time in Windows. If you've got both a Mac and a Windows machine, however, and don't mind splitting time between OS X and Windows, you might want to check it out. A lot of time and brainpower has gone into getting the UDK to have incredible performance on iOS and the license terms have been changed to be much more friendly to small indie shops ($99 plus 25% of royalties after the first $50,000).
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Experts == Idiots?
It's sad, really, the state of technology journalism. But you knew that, already. I should know to enough ignore link-baiting crappy journalism, especially those that do little more than republish some company's press release. Most days, I do.
Not today, though.
Computerworld posted an article with this headline today: Devs bet big on Android over Apple's iOS.
Wow, really? That seems surprising. What could possibly justify such a claim? Some proof that developers are leaving iOS in droves? Some new data about the Android Marketplace is actually making decent money for a substantial portion of Android developers? No, though it is encouraging to see that the Marketplace opened up to 13 new countries today. Still another 60 or so to go, but it's a step in the right direction. But that fact's not even mentioned in this article.
So what justifies such a grandiose claim? A survey of Appcelerator Titanium developers commissioned by Appcelerator. Now, if you don't know, Appcelerator Titanium is a cross-platform framework that allows you to develop an app once and generate applications for multiple paltforms: iOS, Android, Linux, Mac OS, and Windows.
Leaving aside my personal opinions about cross-platform tools, the article has already strayed from the headline. Devs? Well, sure, they're devs, but they're not representative of devs in general as the headline would imply. They're developers who have specifically chosen one option, and it's an option that doesn't tie them to a platform at all. We're talking about a group of people that have already shown their willingness to hedge their bets and who aren't about to take the risk of hitching their wagon to a single platform.
It's an inherently skewed sample. If you ran that same survey past 15,000 dedicated iOS developers, or dedicated Android or Blackberry or .Net developers, you'd get drastically different results.
In other words, this survey has no value whatsoever except to Accelerator. To them, it's perhaps useful for helping them decide where to devote their resources in the future to keep their clients happy.
But for the world at large? Worthless.
Oh, and what constitutes "betting big" in the context of the article? Well, it's not actually addressed, but their idea of "betting big" doesn't seem to match mine. There's nothing about investments, or exclusive agreements, or anything else that involves any sort of risk whatsoever. Developers were just asked things like "how interested are you in a platform X". The "betting" didn't involve monetary investments, or time investments. These developers did nothing more than state an opinion. An anonymous opinion. Oh… those crazy rebels.
Well, I'm "betting big" that the author of this post is a hack and his soi-disant "expert" is fucking clueless.
Let's face it, nobody knows for sure where the mobile market is headed, and being a Titanium Dev doesn't make your opinion any more informed or valuable than anyone else's. Personally, I suspect Android will continue to grow in market share unless Windows Phone 7 is better than great or else Microsoft manages to one-up Google's relationship with Verizon. But, any way you cut it, this is not a replay of the PC battles. There are too many companies still in the game and who have the potential to grow market share, profit share, or whatever other metric by which you want to judge.
Despite what you may read, there is no clear market leader. Nokia is still in the lead based on total handsets, Blackberry is still in the lead based on smartphone handsets sold, Apple is kicking ass in the profits department, and Android is doing gangbusters in new sales unit, if you lump all the 100+ models of Android phones together and count free phones as sales. Plus, the market is still growing. Apple, for example, didn't increase their market share at all year over year, but they increased their units sold considerably.
Understandably, many people are counting Microsoft out of the mobile game, but I'm not. Though I'm no fan of their technology stack or their approach to business, I think the sheer size of Microsoft's advertising budget, their Enterprise-savvy sales force, and the enormous pool of existing .Net developer talent they can draw on gives them an opportunity for huge inroads. They may not capitalize on it, but it's certainly there and counting Microsoft out of the wireless market would be as foolish as counting Apple out of the game 12 years ago was. And over at HP, lots of money and time is being invested into the Pre platform, which has not been a huge commercial success, but got pretty good grades with many developers who worked with it.
The game's afoot. It's going to be fun to watch, but if you are truly a betting person, this is what you might call a high-risk scenario.
Not today, though.
Computerworld posted an article with this headline today: Devs bet big on Android over Apple's iOS.
Wow, really? That seems surprising. What could possibly justify such a claim? Some proof that developers are leaving iOS in droves? Some new data about the Android Marketplace is actually making decent money for a substantial portion of Android developers? No, though it is encouraging to see that the Marketplace opened up to 13 new countries today. Still another 60 or so to go, but it's a step in the right direction. But that fact's not even mentioned in this article.
So what justifies such a grandiose claim? A survey of Appcelerator Titanium developers commissioned by Appcelerator. Now, if you don't know, Appcelerator Titanium is a cross-platform framework that allows you to develop an app once and generate applications for multiple paltforms: iOS, Android, Linux, Mac OS, and Windows.
Leaving aside my personal opinions about cross-platform tools, the article has already strayed from the headline. Devs? Well, sure, they're devs, but they're not representative of devs in general as the headline would imply. They're developers who have specifically chosen one option, and it's an option that doesn't tie them to a platform at all. We're talking about a group of people that have already shown their willingness to hedge their bets and who aren't about to take the risk of hitching their wagon to a single platform.
It's an inherently skewed sample. If you ran that same survey past 15,000 dedicated iOS developers, or dedicated Android or Blackberry or .Net developers, you'd get drastically different results.
In other words, this survey has no value whatsoever except to Accelerator. To them, it's perhaps useful for helping them decide where to devote their resources in the future to keep their clients happy.
But for the world at large? Worthless.
Oh, and what constitutes "betting big" in the context of the article? Well, it's not actually addressed, but their idea of "betting big" doesn't seem to match mine. There's nothing about investments, or exclusive agreements, or anything else that involves any sort of risk whatsoever. Developers were just asked things like "how interested are you in a platform X". The "betting" didn't involve monetary investments, or time investments. These developers did nothing more than state an opinion. An anonymous opinion. Oh… those crazy rebels.
Well, I'm "betting big" that the author of this post is a hack and his soi-disant "expert" is fucking clueless.
Let's face it, nobody knows for sure where the mobile market is headed, and being a Titanium Dev doesn't make your opinion any more informed or valuable than anyone else's. Personally, I suspect Android will continue to grow in market share unless Windows Phone 7 is better than great or else Microsoft manages to one-up Google's relationship with Verizon. But, any way you cut it, this is not a replay of the PC battles. There are too many companies still in the game and who have the potential to grow market share, profit share, or whatever other metric by which you want to judge.
Despite what you may read, there is no clear market leader. Nokia is still in the lead based on total handsets, Blackberry is still in the lead based on smartphone handsets sold, Apple is kicking ass in the profits department, and Android is doing gangbusters in new sales unit, if you lump all the 100+ models of Android phones together and count free phones as sales. Plus, the market is still growing. Apple, for example, didn't increase their market share at all year over year, but they increased their units sold considerably.
Understandably, many people are counting Microsoft out of the mobile game, but I'm not. Though I'm no fan of their technology stack or their approach to business, I think the sheer size of Microsoft's advertising budget, their Enterprise-savvy sales force, and the enormous pool of existing .Net developer talent they can draw on gives them an opportunity for huge inroads. They may not capitalize on it, but it's certainly there and counting Microsoft out of the wireless market would be as foolish as counting Apple out of the game 12 years ago was. And over at HP, lots of money and time is being invested into the Pre platform, which has not been a huge commercial success, but got pretty good grades with many developers who worked with it.
The game's afoot. It's going to be fun to watch, but if you are truly a betting person, this is what you might call a high-risk scenario.
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Illusion of Open
Today, on Twitter, I've been having some back and forth with John Wilker, one of the founders of the 360|iDev Conferences about Android and the concept of "openness". The discussion really helped to clarify some of my thoughts on the matter (thanks, John!).
Now, I've been somewhat harsh on Android at times, but the things I'm harsh about are details and personal programming platform preferences. It's actually a pretty good platform with a huge amount of potential. It now appears to have reached the critical mass needed to really propel it forward, and I do have high hopes that it will keep moving forward, getting better, and pressuring Apple to do even more amazing things than they would have otherwise done.
Yesterday, Google IO ended, and it was clear from the tone of the conference that Google is planning to put up some fierce competition to Apple on several fronts, and that's good. A lot of Google's pitch was focused on this idea of "openness" - that Google's stuff is inherently more "open" (except, of course, the stuff they make money from, but that's a whole separate topic) and therefore better for the user. Tim Bray, Google's Android Evangelist, went off on a rather enthusiastic but somewhat silly Twitter rant a few days ago about openness and the "curated experience" of the iPhone. It's clear that Google sees "openness" as a competitive advantage over Apple and has made it their battle cry in the mobile space.
But, not too long ago, Google announced that it was ending direct sales of their phone, the Nexus One.
Here's the reality of the Android situation now: if you buy an Android phone, it will most likely be locked down by your carrier, possibly also with some features disabled. Or, to use Tim Bray's term, the reality is that most Android phones that get bought are a "curated experience".
In some places, some carriers will sell unlocked phones, but for a great many people, if you want an open Android phone, you will be required to buy one from a carrier and jailbreak it, which is likely a violation of your subscriber agreement. If you don't jailbreak it, you may not get future Android updates. If you buy an Android phone and don't jailbreak it, you might spend the entire life of your phone using the Android version that shipped on it. Your vendor could even charge you a ridiculous monthly fee for the upgrade, something that at least Verizon has considered doing. Even if your carrier does provide updates for free and regularly, there will be a delay as the vendor and provider add all their customizations and restrictions on top of the official Android release.
For the vast majority of people who will buy Android phones, "open" is an illusion because now that Google has abandoned their direct sales model, Android firmly puts the final decision making power for the overall experience of the phone back into the hands of the traditional carrier/vendor relationship that ruled the space before the iPhone came out. Apple, unlike other phone vendors, is capable of going toe-to-toe with the carriers and is willing to do so to fight for a better user experience. That's why we don't have AT&T branding all over our iPhones. That's why we don't have the mandatory 15-second spiel before voicemail that Verizon users have to suffer through. Apple is at least an equal partner with the carriers who sell their phones. Most of the other phone vendors, to put it bluntly, are the carriers' bitches.
Does Android have some nice features that the iPhone doesn't? Absolutely. Is Android improving? No doubt about it and on a regular basis to boot. But, by putting the real power back in the hand of the carriers and their vendor partners, the user experience is never going to be as important in the decision making process as it is for the iPhone. Even if the Android team manages to make the overall experience better than the iPhone (which I consider unlikely, but possible), the carriers will almost certainly screw it up with their ham-handed customizations and restrictions.
If you're going to have a curated experience, isn't it better to at least have one where the curator is making their decisions primarily around the quality of your experience?
Unless Google resumes direct sales or puts licensing limitations on the carriers to prevent them from locking down Android phones, "open" will be just another empty marketing slogan. And I suspect that's what it will be. Google doesn't really care about the user experience, they just want to keep making money on their proprietary, non-open advertising in the mobile space the way they have on the web, and the more Android phones that are out there, the more phones that will be getting Google Ads. Hell, Google even discussed the possibility of unblockable ads at Google IO!
Right. Nothing screams "open" like unblockable advertisements served using proprietary algorithms based on personal data that's been collected about what you do online.
Now, I've been somewhat harsh on Android at times, but the things I'm harsh about are details and personal programming platform preferences. It's actually a pretty good platform with a huge amount of potential. It now appears to have reached the critical mass needed to really propel it forward, and I do have high hopes that it will keep moving forward, getting better, and pressuring Apple to do even more amazing things than they would have otherwise done.
Yesterday, Google IO ended, and it was clear from the tone of the conference that Google is planning to put up some fierce competition to Apple on several fronts, and that's good. A lot of Google's pitch was focused on this idea of "openness" - that Google's stuff is inherently more "open" (except, of course, the stuff they make money from, but that's a whole separate topic) and therefore better for the user. Tim Bray, Google's Android Evangelist, went off on a rather enthusiastic but somewhat silly Twitter rant a few days ago about openness and the "curated experience" of the iPhone. It's clear that Google sees "openness" as a competitive advantage over Apple and has made it their battle cry in the mobile space.
But, not too long ago, Google announced that it was ending direct sales of their phone, the Nexus One.
Here's the reality of the Android situation now: if you buy an Android phone, it will most likely be locked down by your carrier, possibly also with some features disabled. Or, to use Tim Bray's term, the reality is that most Android phones that get bought are a "curated experience".
In some places, some carriers will sell unlocked phones, but for a great many people, if you want an open Android phone, you will be required to buy one from a carrier and jailbreak it, which is likely a violation of your subscriber agreement. If you don't jailbreak it, you may not get future Android updates. If you buy an Android phone and don't jailbreak it, you might spend the entire life of your phone using the Android version that shipped on it. Your vendor could even charge you a ridiculous monthly fee for the upgrade, something that at least Verizon has considered doing. Even if your carrier does provide updates for free and regularly, there will be a delay as the vendor and provider add all their customizations and restrictions on top of the official Android release.
For the vast majority of people who will buy Android phones, "open" is an illusion because now that Google has abandoned their direct sales model, Android firmly puts the final decision making power for the overall experience of the phone back into the hands of the traditional carrier/vendor relationship that ruled the space before the iPhone came out. Apple, unlike other phone vendors, is capable of going toe-to-toe with the carriers and is willing to do so to fight for a better user experience. That's why we don't have AT&T branding all over our iPhones. That's why we don't have the mandatory 15-second spiel before voicemail that Verizon users have to suffer through. Apple is at least an equal partner with the carriers who sell their phones. Most of the other phone vendors, to put it bluntly, are the carriers' bitches.
Does Android have some nice features that the iPhone doesn't? Absolutely. Is Android improving? No doubt about it and on a regular basis to boot. But, by putting the real power back in the hand of the carriers and their vendor partners, the user experience is never going to be as important in the decision making process as it is for the iPhone. Even if the Android team manages to make the overall experience better than the iPhone (which I consider unlikely, but possible), the carriers will almost certainly screw it up with their ham-handed customizations and restrictions.
If you're going to have a curated experience, isn't it better to at least have one where the curator is making their decisions primarily around the quality of your experience?
Unless Google resumes direct sales or puts licensing limitations on the carriers to prevent them from locking down Android phones, "open" will be just another empty marketing slogan. And I suspect that's what it will be. Google doesn't really care about the user experience, they just want to keep making money on their proprietary, non-open advertising in the mobile space the way they have on the web, and the more Android phones that are out there, the more phones that will be getting Google Ads. Hell, Google even discussed the possibility of unblockable ads at Google IO!
Right. Nothing screams "open" like unblockable advertisements served using proprietary algorithms based on personal data that's been collected about what you do online.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Holy Cow - 78 Million iPhone OS Devices‽
According to one analyst, at least, we are on the cusp of 78 million iPhone OS devices in existence.
It wasn't that long ago that I was startled by the fact that there were 55 million devices. Another 23 million devices in just a few months strikes me as a lot of sales, even for the iPhone.
Anyway, just thought I'd share. This may be my last post for a few days. I've come down with the flu, or at least some very nasty flu-like illness. I've been sleeping away the last couple of days (apologies to anyone who has e-mailed, tweeted, or phoned, I'm not even going to try and catch up until Monday). Combine that with the holidays and everything they entail, and I may not have much time for posting over the next week.
If I don't have a chance to say it, happy Christmas / Kwanzaa / Chanukah/ New Year / Bill of Rights Day / Forefather's Day / Maritime Day / Winter Solstice / Boxing Day and any other holiday I might have missed there..
It wasn't that long ago that I was startled by the fact that there were 55 million devices. Another 23 million devices in just a few months strikes me as a lot of sales, even for the iPhone.
Anyway, just thought I'd share. This may be my last post for a few days. I've come down with the flu, or at least some very nasty flu-like illness. I've been sleeping away the last couple of days (apologies to anyone who has e-mailed, tweeted, or phoned, I'm not even going to try and catch up until Monday). Combine that with the holidays and everything they entail, and I may not have much time for posting over the next week.
If I don't have a chance to say it, happy Christmas / Kwanzaa / Chanukah/ New Year / Bill of Rights Day / Forefather's Day / Maritime Day / Winter Solstice / Boxing Day and any other holiday I might have missed there..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)