This Week's Sponsor:

Washing Machine X9

Spring Clean Your Mac Effortlessly

Posts in links

“Apple Sacrificing Usability For Platform Consistency”→

“Apple Sacrificing Usability For Platform Consistency”

Craig Grannell on iOS scrollbars coming to OS X and the mute button on iOS 4.2 for iPad:

Both these things point to Apple wanting to merge concepts in iOS and Mac OS X at all costs. Some cross-pollination is undoubtedly a good idea—Mac OS X having system-wise auto-save/app-resumption will be a major productivity boost if implemented properly; but Apple must also remember that what works on one system won’t necessarily work on the other—and it should also realise that some things really don’t work from a usability standpoint on iOS as it is, and so welding such concepts to Mac OS X isn’t a great idea.

The mute button is a terrible idea. As for iOS scrollbars and scrolling system coming to the desktop, my only concern is whether these features will bring any real improvement besides graphical eye candy. On the iPhone and iPad, rubber-banding is nice because you actually touch the screen and you get this neat scrolling effect. What about the Mac, though, where you place your fingers on a trackpad and you see a pointer on screen?

[via Dan Frakes]

Permalink

Lukas Mathis On Lion’s Fullscreen Mode→

Lukas Mathis On Lion’s Fullscreen Mode

Apple has added «systemwide support for full-screen apps» to Lion. While I agree that the window management system we currently have often causes huge usability issues, simply doing away with it altogether is not solving the problem. It’s capitulating.

There has got to be a way of managing windows that gets rid of the problems caused by overlapping windows, while still giving people the ability to see more than one app at a time. How often do people write text while referring to a webpage? How often do people drag a picture from iPhoto into a Word document, or a file from a Finder window into an email message? Even the most basic tasks commonly require people to see more than one app at a time.

While I don’t mind making the Mac easier to use and learn, I feel that simply switching to full-screen modes isn’t a good way of doing that.

But Apple is not thinking about users who constantly jump back and forth between OmniFocus and Chrome. By making the experience “immersive” and letting you concentrate “on every detail”, they’re clearly trying to appeal those users fascinated by iOS’ way of dealing with applications. Frankly, I don’t think I’ll use fullscreen apps that much.

Permalink

“A Sledgehammer Called OmniFocus”→

“A Sledgehammer Called OmniFocus”

Finding the right tool to keep track of your projects sometimes feels more like a journey than a destination. Many task-management apps have come and gone (some of us have tried them all). But in the past few years, as task-management software has increased its footprint on the Mac, the one app which has stayed in active development and which continues to grow and improve is OmniFocus.

Insightful, in-depth, must-read OmniFocus review and analysis by Shawn Blanc. You can save it in Instapaper, or create an OmniFocus action just for this piece.

Permalink

Hollywood Is Hooked on iPads→

Hollywood Is Hooked on iPads

The actress Dana Delany, who will star in “Body of Proof,” a coming ABC drama, said she now has revisions sent to her digitally. “I think it’s the greatest invention in years,” Ms. Delany said. (The iPad will be a fixture in the medical examiner room on “Body of Proof,” which will start in early 2011.)

Mr. Orci’s iPad has served as the daily “call sheet” with the day’s instructions; acted as a map in an unfamiliar location; and allowed him to keep tabs on “Fringe” and “Hawaii Five-0,” two shows he helps produce.

Content consumption, indeed.

Permalink

Mac App Store and Micro-Apps→

Mac App Store and Micro-Apps

MG Siegler:

This weekend, Ryan Block put up an interesting post on gdgt entitled: Will the Mac App Store have enough to sell? He raises a number of good points for why Apple may not be able to replicate their current App Store success with this new desktop store. But I’m left wondering if the store won’t lead to a new class of app: a sort of micro-app for the desktop.

Block makes the following points: a) high-end software like Photoshop won’t be placed in this store because Adobe won’t want to give Apple a 30 percent cut of all sales. b) most paid desktop software is dead or dying due to free replacements on the web. c) Apple’s strict rules will prevent developers from using this new store for test or demo software. I agree with all of those points. And that’s why I’m wondering if this store won’t instead lead to this new type of app environment.

Yours truly, two days ago:

The worst scenario would be: “simple apps” are sold in the Mac App Store, “real apps” are available on the developers’ website. For as much as the Mac App Store is a great opportunity and I’m sure it’ll be huge among consumers, I can imagine some developers, frustrated either with Apple’s restrictions or lack of trial support, will end up selling software only on their websites.

Either “micro” or “simple”, it is clear that the biggest issue Apple has to face is convincing the big names to jump on board. Or maybe Apple doesn’t need them, as they’ll come back on their own once they’ll see the money “simple micro apps” can make.

Permalink

“Mac Developers Are Laughing at the Mac App Store Guidelines”→

“Mac Developers Are Laughing at the Mac App Store Guidelines”

Jonathan Rentzsch:

Studying the details of Apple’s current implementation, it becomes clear Apple crafted the Mac App Store policies primarily with its own interests in mind, not of its customers and certainly not its developers.

My fellow Mac developers are laughing at the Mac App Store guidelines. They’re reporting that apps they’ve been shipping for years — a number of them Apple Design Award-winning — would be rejected from the Mac App Store. These are proven apps, beloved by their users. The current guidelines are clearly out-of-touch.

Maybe not just its own interests in mind, but there’s no doubt Apple has something to fix here. Does the 90-day timeframe sound like a “let’s gather feedback before the thing goes live” strategy to anyone else? How long before revised guidelines?

Permalink

The History of Trainyard→

The History of Trainyard

I tried a variety of mini-marketing escapades, including spending $50 on AdMob, $50 on Project Wonderful (Axe Cop, specifically), and $50 on Google Adwords. None of that worked. $50 is almost too tiny an amount to spend, but it became immediately obvious that any ad campaign within my budget would have no effect on sales whatsoever.

I should add that I definitely wasn’t disheartened. I knew it would take time, and that I had a great game that would eventually be successful. I just really wasn’t sure how to get there, but that was part of the adventure.

Great story, and congrats.

Permalink

iPad: Scroll or Card?→

iPad: Scroll or Card?

You often hear the argument that the iPad is all new and the Internet is all shit (too cold, too technical, not pretty enough), so the nerds should be ignored. After all, the iPad is closer to printed magazine than that damned Internet, right? No, it’s not. It’s a touch screen device. Touch SCREEN device. The fact that you touch it doesn’t mean that it’s like print. As a matter of fact it’s lightyears away from print.

Amen.

Permalink

Mac App Store Review Guidelines Breakdown→

Mac App Store Review Guidelines Breakdown

Nilay Patel at Engadget takes a look at Apple’s review guidelines for the Mac App Store. This caught my attention:

6.2 Apps that look similar to Apple Products or apps bundled on the Mac, including the Finder, iChat, iTunes, and Dashboard, will be rejected. This one’s quite odd, as there are lots and lots of Mac apps that look like Apple’s own apps – DoubleTwist looks like iTunes, for example, and almost every FTP app looks like the Finder in some way. And what about an app like Delicious Library, which actually inspired Apple apps like iBooks and iPhoto 11’s new books interface? This one’s going to be hard to enforce in a reasonable way.

Permalink