Every now and then, it's nice to give technology a break

This morning when I came out of the shower I was greeted to this note that my girlfriend left on my laptop:

Do you want to delete your Facebook or Google+ account? Chances are that you're not going to do it right.

For whatever reason people are always asking me if your Facebook account can really be deleted. It's well known that Facebook or Google actually wouldn't remove all of your data from their storage if you request to be removed from their service. Essentially there's no deletion, it's only a deactivation of your account.

From the Facebook Help pages, Facebook actually say that you CAN delete your account now, and they distinguish it from being merely deactivated. Whether you trust their word on this or not is another thing:

Pinterest is generating a frenzied amount of interest recently, and it looks like it's the first major social web success story of 2012! The concept is genuinely unique and it solves a problem that people are always looking to solve - how to organise and categorise a bunch of interests without making it so damn boring.

Google also came up with a unique categorising solution in Google+ last year, by organising friends and other groups of people into circles. Like Google+, Pinterest is also borrowing it's relatively new marketing tactic of signing up new users by invite only. I was initially put off by this, but was only motivated to blog about it when I saw a friend's tweet last night:

@RunShorts "Seriously, pinterest has a wait list?"

When Google+ used it, it was a cheeky new tactic. Personally I respected Google's move and thought it was savvy, it was a way of generating interest that hasn't been done on the web before. Google+ has had moderate success so far, 90 million users (regardless of active or not) in under a year is impressive. Their biggest hindrance so far is that a lot of the buzz and usage hasn't been from the female camp. Pinterest is different here.

Pinterest has used the same invite only but they've succeeded in where Google have failed, generating a mass amount of interest among female users. Ultimately that's what determines the success of a social network - if you have a large amount of females on board guys usually follow, but the opposite isn't usually true (except for surfing, girls always follow a bunch of guys when it comes to surfing). For this reason Pinterest is set to become more of a success than Google+. That's not a problem, I like Pinterest. But now the precedent is set for this marketing tactic to become a..."trend". 

Swarley says "No more! I will not let this become a thing!"

Why I groan is that this tactic was widely used in the 90's nightclub scene (and may still be, for all that this aging discobot knows). Being allowed in certain clubs by invite only or on a members list, generated buzz and interest during the short term. In the long term these clubs only got a reputation for being pretentious and snooty. Or it was deemed as some mild extension of class warfare.

It's now inevitable that other new web companies (probably a ridiculously huge number) are going to emulate this tactic. So my plea to start ups is this - please do not let this become the norm for every single new web app! Please for the love of the internet, do not make the internet an exclusive affair. Let users be users. If people want to use something, charge them a fee, let them sign in, let them use it for free, let them access it with no login, do whatever... but do not exclusify the internet.

Is this what's going to define Web 3.0? Really?

For the record, this isn't a gripe by some guy who "just wants to be let into the club". I'm already on Pinterest, whether I'll use it or not is another question:

http://pinterest.com/mikepost/

Please excuse the title, it's a personal rule of mine to append "boogaloo" to any subject that ends in the number 2.

"An in-depth discussion about standard migration is beyond the scope of this tutorial/book"

Remember this? This was the opening phrase in Part 1 of my Core Data Standard Migration tutorial, in which I:

• gave a background on why the heck standard migration is necessary and rarely beyond any migration "scope";
• explained the concepts behind core data migration and gave a state diagram in a way that Apple hasn't;
• went on a rant in between all this, about the lack of detail that exists out there.

I've repeated the above quote in the introduction of Part 2 because it's worth reminding you that this IS NOT what this tutorial is about! We're going to dig in deep and tackle the hard problems of Standard Migration, not Lightweight Migration (which is extensively covered everywhere else, including the moon). The only reason there is even a Part 2 is because Part 1 was getting ridiculously long, and you would probably already be bored by the time the practical element was about to begin (MTV generation, low attention spans, etc).

I'm going to provide you with a logical style of learning the process. Firstly explaining what we need to do, then outlining the practical steps to achieve this. I'm also going to accompany the explanations with references to the Apple docs where I can, for verification if you need it explained in the more mechanical Apple-like manner, and so you can confirm that i'm not pulling this information from a mythical repository in the sky.

NOTE: The accompanying images and explanations of this tutorial are made with Xcode 4.2 in mind. You'll have to do things a little differently if you have any version of Xcode less than 4.0. Sorry, but I don't deal with backwards compatibility and neither should you, it's the Apple way.