This Week's Sponsor:

1Blocker

A Cleaner, Faster, and More Private Web Experience

Posts in stories

iOS 7: Thoughts and Questions

iOS 7

iOS 7

Announced yesterday at Apple’s WWDC 2013 keynote, iOS 7 is a dramatic reimagination of Apple’s mobile operating system.

iOS 7 introduces new user features and brings over 1500 new developer APIs. For users looking for a quick overview of what’s changed and improved in iOS 7, the OS’ user interface will immediately appear as the most visible change. Tim Cook referred to it as a “stunning new UI”, noting how iOS 7 is the biggest change to iOS since the introduction of the original iPhone, which ran iPhone OS 1.0. iOS 7 is unmistakably different, but how the interface looks is simply the first aspect that jumps out. Read more

iOS 7 Wishes

There’s a lot of talk about WWDC and a “flat” design style coming to iOS, but I’m more concerned about iOS’ functionality than its looks. While I am certainly intrigued by the possibility of a major visual refresh, I think changing a few textures doesn’t ultimately do any good if the process isn’t accompanied by an equal focus on improving and revamping the iOS user experience.

For the past year, I have been increasingly using my iPad as my primary device for leisure and work. I still use my Mac, but the iPad is where I do most of my reading, research, and writing. When I can’t use my iPad, I rely on the iPhone (and the same setup of apps) to discover links, save items for later, and process my email inbox.

I know what I would like to see in iOS 7 because I have been using iOS devices every day. Like every year, I have put together a list of new features, changes, and fixes I’d like to see in the next version of iOS. Some of them revolve around “big picture” concepts, some are more practical minor fixes, but all of them would contribute to improving my daily iOS experience. I think the following list contains ideas that aren’t too absurd – many of them have been appearing in pre-WWDC wish lists for years now. You can take a look at my iOS 6 article from last year to see how it went. Read more

The AppGratis Removal

Jean-Louis Gassée has a solid summary of the whole story behind AppGratis’ App Store removal. If you missed it, here’s Apple’s official stance.

I did comment on the topic – six months ago:

Second, we should consider the manipulation of charts. While not specifically mentioned in the new rule, it’s easy to imagine Apple doesn’t want marketing and promotion campaigns to be capable of altering their ranking algorithm for the App Store. Apple has been rumored to dislike these promotion campaigns in the past, tweaking its ranking algorithm to reflect “real” popularity of an app among users. But maybe that’s not enough at this point, and Apple really does want to limit the relevance of this kind of services by, well, enforcing rules that would get them out of the App Store.

And:

This is pure speculation on my side. But I’d consider this: Apple recently revamped the App Store homepage with its own Free App of the Week initiative (alongside a new Editor’s Choice). Would it be a surprise if they thought all these other “free app a day” and “free app download” services could be confusing to the user?

I also added this in regards to “gaming the system”:

But more importantly, rule 2.25 could be enforced for those marketing tools that get users “rewards” for downloading other apps for free — a technique that, consequently, also increases the popularity of the apps that get downloaded as part of the promotion. The problem is that users download those apps only for the rewards — they’re not really interested in them. For this reason, developers could — even slightly — game the system and, to an extent, trick Apple’s algorithm. I don’t see how that can be a good thing.

Back to Gassèe’s article:

Apple isn’t wrong to reserve the right to make such decisions. Although insiders may depict the company as obsessive control freaks, “normal” customers seem to appreciate Apple’s efforts to keep the App Store a Clean, Well-Lighted Place.

But maintaining a stony silence when imposing a judgment call is a bad choice, it distances developers, and it inevitably triggers controversy. A few words of explanation would invite respect for having courageously taken a difficult stance.

This is a fair point. Here’s what I wrote – again, in October 2012:

After talking to several developers today, my understanding is that rule 2.25 has been enforced on some cases, but that it’s not clear how much Apple will enforce it going forward. Apple has notoriously made exceptions in the past: there used to be a rule for apps that “duplicated” existing functionality, but then Apple started approving third-party browsers and, recently, email clients. For all we know right now, it is possible that rule 2.25 will never be seriously enforced and that it’ll slowly “fade away” with time. Or more simply, developers will find ways to work around the rule.

“It’s not clear”, I said. My sources were correct. Here’s John Paczkowski for AllThingsD:

Sources familiar with Apple’s thinking tell AllThingsD that AppGratis’ ouster was a first step in a broader enforcement action generally targeted at app-discovery apps that run afoul of clauses 2.25 and 5.6.

And:

If it has been confusing, it’s because Apple, while being quite clear in citing the rules it is enforcing, has been unclear and scattershot in their actual enforcement.

I don’t know if this BusinessInsider’s report is true. AppGratis CEO Simon Dawlat calls their business model “just regular advertising”; Jason Calacanis says this is “lame on Apple’s part” and that “this is not gaming, this is called forecasting”.

I didn’t link to the AppGratis story previously because, frankly, I thought Apple’s position on the matter had already been amply discussed last year. The way I see it, nothing has changed in regards to how Apple sees third-party apps that mimic the App Store’s appearance while simply linking to other apps. And I thought it was pretty clear that Apple didn’t appreciate developers who kept coming up with advertising models to circumvent the Guidelines and “connect” users with promoted apps in the top Charts. But, apparently, AppGratis’ ouster was publicized enough to make a French minister comment on the matter. Read more

Thoughts On Twitter #music

Music

Music

Earlier today, Twitter released its official #music app.[1] This first release, like Vine before, is iPhone-only with a web counterpart. I believe that Music, more than Vine, can give an indication of the direction Twitter may take in regards to its media strategy. But first, I’d like to highlight two excerpts from Twitter’s blog post announcing Music:

Twitter and music go great together. People share and discover new songs and albums every day. Many of the most-followed accounts on Twitter are musicians, and half of all users follow at least one musician. This is why artists turn to Twitter first to connect with their fans — and why we wanted to find a way to surface songs people are tweeting about.

Today, we’re releasing Twitter #music, a new service that will change the way people find music, based on Twitter. It uses Twitter activity, including Tweets and engagement, to detect and surface the most popular tracks and emerging artists. It also brings artists’ music-related Twitter activity front and center: go to their profiles to see which music artists they follow and listen to songs by those artists. And, of course, you can tweet songs right from the app.

“Tweets and engagement” are key factors of the algorithm Twitter is using to “detect and surface” tracks, both popular and emerging. The fact that half of all users (active or not) follow at least one musician on Twitter is an important metric to keep in mind. Read more

Quantifying The Australian “Apple Tax”

On Friday, Apple (along with Microsoft and Adobe) will front the Federal Australian Parliament’s inquiry into IT Pricing. You may recall that after failing to voluntarily appear, the committee in February of this year summonsed the three, effectively forcing them to appear. Given Apple’s appearance, I wanted to take a closer look to see what Apple actually charges for their products (both hardware and media from their iTunes and App Stores) and see how it compares to the US.

Methodology

Doing this kind of analysis can be fairly contentious given there are a few ways to do it, various assumptions you have to make, and different ways of presenting the information. To be clear, here is how I have constructed the data presented in the graphs in this article.

  • I collected from Apple’s website, the Australian and US prices of all their key products and main models (but not built-to-order models).
  • GST is removed from Australian price: The Australian price includes a 10% GST (goods and services tax), so I removed that from the Australian price because US prices do not include a sales tax, that is added at checkout based on which US state the customer is from (sales taxes varies across US states).
  • Now that both prices don’t include sales taxes, I convert the Australian price from Australian dollars (AUD) to US dollars (USD). I use a 3 month average of the exchange rate. The 3 month average smoothes out any temporary peaks or troughs in the exchange rate and gives Apple a fairly lengthy period of time to alter prices if there was a significant change in the exchange rate.
  • This now gives me the price of the Australian good in USD and without GST, a figure that can now be compared with the US price. So I calculate the percentage markup of the Australian price based on the original US price.
  • NOTE: Methodology for the Media calculations do vary a bit, read the notes I include with them.
  • I encourage you to scrutinise my calculations by taking a look at the Excel document I created, linked below.

Acknowledging The Threat Of Samsung


In the past week Apple’s marketing chief, Phil Schiller, gave three interviews and the company sent out a new “Why iPhone” email campaign - both timed perfectly around the announcement of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S4. Some have called it out as Apple going on the defensive, others have said it’s Apple on the offensive. I’m not sure that you can categorically say it’s one or the other – it doesn’t really matter much.

Read more

iPads for Work

Shawn Blanc, writing about the iPad as a “professional” device:

Even amongst the readers of this site — whom are decidedly, clever, nerdy, and prone to living on the bleeding edge — when I talk about using the iPad as my laptop, I get more than a few raised eyebrows and responses from people who still need or prefer to grab their MacBook when it’s time to work away from the office. Even my own wife would not be persuaded to get an iPad when she needed a new computer.

I think there are many facets to this discussion. I’ll pick two.

More “advanced” users who are aware of the scripting and automation features of OS X miss those in the transition to the iPad; on the flip side, users who don’t want to automate anything still need to get work done using suites like Office or Google Docs, but the iPad doesn’t offer the same degree of functionality that a computer has in those areas. It’s an important difference: “geeks” who want robust automation combined with flexibility (usually the same people who end up writing on the Internet, like me), and people who don’t require anything fancy but just want to get things done at the office. Given the iPad strengths (portability, screen) and constraints (text selection and editing topping the list), I believe the first segment requires a deeper reworking of iOS, while the second is more related to simply finding the right third-party apps (if any).

Case in point: the aforementioned Office and Google Docs. Apple’s iWork suite was stuck for almost two years with a ridiculous file sharing mechanism, then received iCloud support, which was better, but still far from bulletproof. Even more pragmatically speaking, the iWork apps for iPad were a major breakthrough in 2010, but in 2013 they still lack many of the features of the desktop versions: Pages’ change tracking is an example, Numbers’ limited chart creation is another. What about Office, which, speaking of spreadsheets, admittedly offers even more power with Excel? Microsoft still hasn’t shown anything. Google Docs? Google insisted on giving users a web app for years, then switched to a native app, rebranded as Drive, that, however, is fairly behind when compared to the “regular” web app. This is just a possible scenario – Office-type apps – but you get my point. And yes, in spite of jokes aimed at Microsoft – people still do use Office (or, again, the free, Office-type Google Docs).

What about geeks? They usually are early adopters of features and products that go on to find success with “everyone”. I speak for experience when I say those users would like to see better inter-app communication and a way to automate tedious tasks. The funny thing is – while I purposefully took some concepts to the extreme – those aren’t “nerd requests” at all: Services, for instance, have been one of the most visible, understandable examples of OS X apps communicating with each other through data and files. Automator has allowed the creation of workflows with a “visual approach” for over a decade now.

So while I’d say this is undoubtedly “geek” and beyond most people’s needs, can we say something as simple as avoiding duplicates wouldn’t be beneficial to all kinds of iOS users? Does the “average” iOS user need to jump between 7 apps to complete a single task? How can Apple improve that area while keeping iOS easy to use and secure? How do they balance “geeky” features with “everyone” features? Could Automator go mainstream with an iOS version?

Does iOS need to be “more advanced” to be taken seriously for work purposes?

There are many questions. In the two areas I mentioned, Apple will need time to rework some aspects of iOS; developers still need time to figure out how to let people work on iOS devices.

Ultimately, I agree with Shawn. iOS devices – and iPads in particular – are professional grade devices, but their full potential will be uncovered by further developments of Apple’s software and third-party apps.

Always Beaten

In thinking about the latest round of rumors of another company supposedly “beating” Apple to a market in which Apple hasn’t entered yet, I remembered how this sort of scenario happened many times in the past. I wanted to understand if “beating to the punch” is really the parameter we should be looking at.

Therefore I used Google to find evidence, and I was given plenty of it.

August 2009: Bloomberg Businessweek says Nokia beat Apple to the punch by unveiling a netbook.

January 2010: Electricpig wonders if a Microsoft Courier appearance could beat Apple to the punch.

January 2010: Tom’s Hardware believes the HP Slate will beat Apple to the tablet punch.

July 2011: Dvice says Motorola is preparing to beat Apple to the market with a Retina Display tablet.

December 2011: BGR says Samsung could beat Apple to the market with a Retina tablet.

April 2012: The Los Angeles Times asks whether IKEA has beaten Apple to an all-in-one television.

June 2012: WebProNews says a Google Maps announcement will beat Apple to the punch.

June 2012: AppleFanSite asks if Microsoft has beaten Apple to the 7-inch tablet market with an Xbox Surface tablet.

September 2012: Forbes asks if Nintendo has beaten Apple to an iTV.

October 2012: Gizmodo says Amazon beat Apple to the classroom.

January 2013: Business Insider says even Sony will beat Apple to making a giant phone.

February 2013: MacRumors says Samsung could beat Apple to market with an iWatch competitor.

How many of those races – “being first” – resulted (when true) in a subsequent return in terms of profit? And how many of those headlines were purposefully crafted for the sake of pageviews?

Two brief thoughts. First, for a company that’s been beaten like that, Apple is doing surprisingly well.

More importantly, I believe it’s clear that, in Apple’s case, the market didn’t care about who was first. But there are some aspects to consider.

People wanted – and I think they will continue wanting – the best products, not the ones that arrived first on the shelves. If the best product is also first, even better. But if the first product isn’t worth the money, I see a problem.

Apple was “beaten to the market” in many other occasions that I haven’t listed here: higher capacity portable music players; LCD color screens; digital marketplaces; video chat; and yes, even smartphones. I am not poking fun at the headlines – I am using them to point out a general “notion” that has been going on for years among tech companies, reporters, and consumers: that “beating someone else to the punch” is automatically synonymous of increased chances of success.

I wonder if Apple’s competitors believed they needed to “beat Apple to the punch”. Because from where I stand, I see one that underestimated the iPhone, one that is making billions, and another that is ridiculously late. Others aren’t doing very well, or they are taking entirely different approaches. Did they really want to beat Apple to the punch, or was it just a headline that told us they would?

Apple is a company, and like every company they want to make a profit. Unlike others – many others – they have been smart in investing resources not to beat HTC, Sony, or RIM to the punch – but to make the best products without being late to the point where people wouldn’t care anymore.1

Making sure that your product is good and that you’re not extremely late to the game. It’s overly simplified, but I’d say that, with such underlying philosophy, being second is generally a good position.2 It buys a company like Apple time to understand what the market wants and what is required to produce new products on a large scale for a profit. In other words: the Apple TV is still a hobby.

Or maybe I’m wrong, and Apple’s competitors were first and did have a superior product, but for some reason Apple convinced the masses to buy iOS devices instead even if they came “second” to the market. But I don’t think so.

Looking ahead at this (rumored) wave of new products – watches, televisions, game consoles – I think the real question is: who can beat others to the punch in delivering the best product?

  1. Apple was also second in other areas, and they’re struggling there. But that’s a different topic. Yes, Apple has problems. ↩︎

  2. The next obvious step to prove this theory will be the Apple television as opposed to, say, Samsung Smart TVs. ↩︎

A Better App Store

Better App Store

Better App Store

Marco Tabini has a good overview of how the App Store (both for iOS and OS X) could use some improvements now that the 1 million app milestone is in sight. I particularly agree with his points on curation:

Given the sheer volume of apps on the App Stores, Apple’s role in curating them is becoming more and more important. The company’s notoriously tight grip on its distribution channels is often the source of much controversy, but there’s no denying that, by and large, it promotes all apps on an even field: In any given week, the latest release from a giant like, say, Electronic Arts could share the “Editor’s Pick” spot with an app written by an equally talented—but much more wallet-impaired—team of independent developers.

App Store curation is a topic I have been covering on MacStories for the past year, so Marco’s observations resonate with me. Looking back at my Four Years of App Store article from May 2012, it’s clear that the App Store team has done a very good job in increasing “human curation” with custom sections and weekly features, but there’s still lots of work to be done. So, with the one-million app mark approaching, I thought this could be a good time to offer some suggestions for improvements (you’ve probably already seen a lot of these as tweets in my Twitter timeline).

Read more