Rumors of a 7” iPad have been rampant for months, but this week they’ve really picked up steam as stories at the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg have all but confirmed it. But despite everyone calling it “the iPad Mini”, I remain unconvinced. A 7” iPad has never made sense to me for one reason and one reason alone: interface. Read more
Posts in stories
The Case For A 7” iPod [Updated]
The Current State Of Music-Making and Discovery On The iPad
I have a confession to make: I’m a nerd. Yes, and I’m proud of it, because I think being a nerd means two things: I’m constantly curious about details, and I don’t hesitate to try out new stuff. To satisfy my curiosity, I’ve always dived into Apple’s ecosystem and the latest hardware related to it. Fortunately, my passion for Apple correlates with my love for discovering new music. I’ve been playing guitar since I was eight years old, and I love electronic music from the bottom of my heart as well. I’ve always found myself interested in both the traditional (perhaps organic) hardware side of music, and the more modern, digital software production process.
When the iPhone came out, many blogging colleagues and people around me predicted that its new software system, combined with the mobility of the device itself, would change the way people produce music and think about audible art as a whole. Three years later Apple unveiled the iPad. iPhone music software was indeed present at the time, but people soon recognized that the device’s screen was too small to create usable professional software for it — playing on-screen keyboards was nearly impossible and attempts to build high-end software synths like ReBirth or drum machines ended up in cluttered, untidy screens.
This problem seemed to get solved with the large screen of the iPad. Professional software retailers like KORG immediately started coding software versions of their most successful hardware. For instance, the iElectribe was one of the first apps available after the device’s launch. Over the years, I constantly tried out music apps for the iPad, tested hardware accessories (made possible with the release of iPhone OS 3), and never stopped investigating advantages, problems, and future possibilities of all those apps. Now, five years after the launch of iOS and the iPhone, I think it’s time to look back at how Apple’s mobile devices, with the focus clearly on the iPad, have changed the world of music and how they’ll continue to affect the future.
To do this, I recently went through my app archive and analyzed which kind of music apps remained installed on my devices, and which ones I liked when I tested them, but didn’t gain a place in my personal workflow. I discovered that I had to clearly divide music apps in several areas when discussing them. I distinguished between eight types of available music apps: promotion, discovery, entry level playing apps, handy/learning tools, sketching apps, recording, and professional software.
Throughout this post, I will cover each of those areas separately and point out their current state by discussing the most elaborate app(s) in their respective areas. I will point out the advantages and problems iOS brings to them, and predict — as far ahead as possible — what the future might hold.
MacStories Interviews: Brett Kelly
In our ongoing series of interviews with developers and creators in the Apple community, I recently had the chance to talk with Brett Kelly, Evernote extraordinaire, founder of NerdGap, and creator of Evernote Essentials. When he’s not making things with words and computers, Brett tweets as @inkedmn.
The interview below was conducted between February 3 and July 3, 2012.
MacStories: Hey Brett! Could you introduce yourself to the readers who haven’t heard about you before?
Brett Kelly: Ahoy Federico! I sure can…
My name is Brett Kelly. I’m a writer, podcaster and software developer from Southern California. By day, I’m the Technical Communications Manager for Evernote where I write user documentation and build cool software tools. I write a blog at nerdgap.com and I’m probably best known as the author of the popular getting started guide for Evernote, Evernote Essentials. I’m happily married to my first wife and we have two crazily wonderful children who are crazy.
MS: I’m a proud Evernote customer myself – I use the service every day – and I have read your Evernote Essentials guide. How did you get started with Evernote in the first place? Getting to work for the company you’re already passionate about sounds like a dream job.
BK: Always nice to meet a fellow Evernote user.
Back in early 2008, a friend of mine send me an invite to the private beta for this thing called “Evernote”. I gave it a brief spin and, as soon as I realized that I could stick stuff in there and it would sync between my work and home computers, I was hooked. Remember this was before the iPhone app, as well as the App Store!
I immediately started using the crap out of it; work stuff, personal stuff, it all ended up in Evernote. Almost four years and over 10,000 notes later, I’m a bigger fan of the product than I was last week and I’m both proud and humbled that I get to work with such a ridiculously smart group of people. Read more
Five
It’s easy to look back at five years of iPhone and say that it was just about technology.
Five years ago, the original iPhone launched in the United States to much hype and a slightly different world. Apple was a much smaller company; Obama wasn’t President of the United States; R.E.M. were still together. The interface design behind the iPhone was, too, a little different than the bits we touch and swipe today. Both Ars Technica and Macworld have published solid retrospectives about the past five years.
The iPhone has created an economy that’s spurring the creation of jobs and new positions all over the globe. It reignited the mobile phone industry, and, in one fell swoop, turned competitors upside down as they struggled to keep their eyes open to the new wind blowing in their direction. The App Store didn’t launch until 2008, but its numbers are the very example of the software revolution spearheaded by the iPhone.
Unlike most inventions of modern history, though, the iPhone created a culture. And that’s because – unlike the ATM or the cordless telephone – the iPhone brought people together. By allowing developers to craft software for consumers willing to pay for it, the iPhone took down the wall between creation and consumption – the virtual barrier that normally separates an inventor from people using a product.
Both sides affected by this change – developers and users – ultimately became the starting point, the goal, and the focus.
The iPhone is about the people.
Like any other company looking for a profit, Apple has always needed to make money with the iPhone. But, after five years, I like to think that there can be a good cause behind profit and industry strategies – that there can be a purpose to “make great products”. And maybe I’m wrong, but I believe the iPhone has proved to be one of those major changes that have made people’s lives better. By combining breakthrough hardware design with the human touch, iPhone didn’t just change the way people communicate, work, and play: it saved lives, improved workplaces, told stories.
Sometimes there’s more to progress than just technology.
[image credit: Flickr]
Different and Familiar
Ted Landau speculates on what might happen with the next version of OS X:
This means limiting software on Macs only to apps that come from the Mac App Store (possibly also allowing Gatekeeper-approved software from elsewhere, but I doubt it). It would also mean cutting off end-user access to the Mac’s operating system (a trend begun with Apple making the user’s Library folder invisible in Lion, but which would vastly expand in 10.9). It would mean the ejection of any third-party software that “tweaks” the operating system. Apple would also remove its own system-level utilities, such as Terminal (Apple doesn’t permit anything like Terminal on iOS devices). It is even possible that the Finder would be eliminated (as I previously considered). Finally, it would mean that the software used to develop software (e.g., Xcode) would no longer run (just like you can’t now develop software for iPads on iPads).
In his speculation about a possible OS X 10.9, Landau envisions a Mac ecosystem where Pro machines (MacBook Pro, Mac Pro) will run the “real” OS X, with consumer products (MacBook Air, iMac) left with a “simpler” version of the operating system that’s basically iOS with a keyboard and Mac apps. I think this speculation is misguided.
Apple knows that Mac users are loyal to the platform because it is different from iOS devices. Mac hardware revenue may not be at the same level of iPhones and iPads, but in the last quarter, it still represented 13% of the company’s revenue with 4 million Macs sold. Not to mention that, as Tim Cook himself has noted on several occasions, the “halo effect” has helped Apple transition iPhone and iPad users interested in a similar, yet different platform to the OS X ecosystem.
The key is familiarity. By refining the feature set and enabling new functionalities across Mac and iOS devices, Apple is ensuring an iPhone user can have a basic understanding of a MacBook Air, and vice versa. “iOS-ification”, as this process has been called for convenience numerous times in the past, has really turned into the simple strategy of allowing familiar features to act the same across devices, while leveraging the differences of each device to make it intuitive and easy to use. Notification Center works the same on iOS 6 and Mountain Lion, yet on the Mac, you get support for Hot Corners. Familiar, but also unique.
If users wanted an iPad with a keyboard – because that’s effectively what Landau is proposing – they’d get an iPad with a keyboard. The problem is, this possible scenario has already been addressed by Apple: at the Q2 2012 conference call, Tim Cook famously noted how some would like to converge a toaster and a refrigerator – with unpleasant results for the users. People have different requirements: millions of customers decide to buy a Mac every quarter, and it’s very likely that the majority of them already owns an iPhone or iPad. They know the differences, but they also appreciate the familiarity.
This speculation is reminiscent of old rumors about a “simpler” iPhone nano – a mythical device capable of running a slimmed-down version of iOS. Why would Apple want to separate OS X into two products when, by default, the OS retains many of the “simple touches” of iOS? The Mac’s greatest strength is customization – Apple puts a Launchpad in your Dock, but you can explore the contents of your filesystem with the Terminal if you want. Putting functionalities on the same level no matter the device you’re using hasn’t impacted the nature of the Mac in a way that has turned OS X into a completely different product. If anything, it made the Mac better.
Apple already makes a separate version of OS X, and it’s called OS X Server. That is an entirely different take on the operating system, with features that wouldn’t appeal to the average consumer (or even professional). But does its existence somewhat justify the theory of new OS X Consumer product?
To paraphrase Craig Federighi, OS X makes it easier than ever to work with the devices we already have in our lives. And that has been possible thanks to an effort to turn the Mac’s nature into a more comfortable and familiar habitat for users interested in a different kind of experience. Landau thinks OS X “Professional” would come without any restriction (“restrictions” can already be disabled in Lion and Mountain Lion) and even drop some “iOS-related features”. How would that help the ecosystem? And why do we keep thinking of “professional users” as weird-looking programmers who don’t like anything Apple has brought to OS X – even going as far as suggesting features should be dropped?
Professional users enjoy the improvements made to OS X as much as the 99% does. I believe that features like Notification Center and Power Nap are additions that will unarguably make OS X easier and more powerful (and they are both iOS-inspired). How would pro users react to an unarguably worse Mac without those great functionalities?
OS X won’t magically become more “professional” by excluding features and familiar elements. The way I see it – and judging from recent statements and keynotes, the way Apple sees it, too – Apple simply needs to keep making OS X a better product by refining patterns and interactions based on decades of computing with today’s technologies and trends in mind. That might mean a Library hidden by default, or a different file save dialog box that makes iCloud front and center in Mountain Lion. There have been bumps on the road (Sandboxing criticism; iCloud issues), but I’d argue that both Lion and Mountain Lion haven’t taken anything away from the pro user, for as much as many have been crying wolf in regards to filesystem access and the Mac App Store (case in point: Gatekeeper is coming to OS X 10.8).
Apple will bring more iOS-inspired features to OS X. Or perhaps they will add OS X functionalities to iOS. The point is, in doing so, I have no doubt Apple will consider the unique traits of each platform, and they will develop the features accordingly. But splitting OS X in two just for the sake of easy profits (“It’s an iPad laptop!”) sounds like a step backwards and one towards fragmentation. Furthermore, we shouldn’t associate Apple’s delay with a “real” update for the Mac Pro line with the future of OS X.
Ultimately, the goal isn’t to forcibly transition every iOS user to the Mac as part of an evil plan blindly based on “money”. It’s to provide a great ecosystem of products that keeps users happy, and Apple profitable. And in a solid ecosystem, differences aren’t seen as disadvantages: they are core strengths if they can work better together.
Why Upgrade Pricing Isn’t Coming To The App Store
The 2012 WWDC keynote has come and gone, and we now know which of the many rumored announcements turned out to be true and which turned out to be false. But there was one unrumored announcement many developers were hoping would be true that failed to materialize altogether: the option to offer paid upgrades and true demo versions for their apps.
Demos and paid upgrades are something that App Store developers (where “App Store” encompasses both iOS and Mac) have long since wanted, as Wil Shipley explained in his blog post “The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades” and as John Gruber and Cabel Sasser discussed on episode 5 of The Talk Show. No doubt there are many Apple users, especially longstanding Mac fans, who would be happy for the opportunity to support their favorite developers and be rewarded with lower prices for new versions of their favorite apps as well (the “99¢ IS TOO EXPENSIVE” crowd need not apply). As Shipley’s post lays out, it would seem there are many good reasons for Apple to implement these. So why haven’t they?
I think it comes down to one of Apple’s core values: simplicity.
The fact that Apple chose to name their online retail presence the “App Store” is, I think, telling. Remember that Apple aims squarely for the mass market (much to the consternation of some advanced and pro users) and remember what shopping at a real life store is like for that market.
When most people go to a store, they don’t expect to take home products that catch their eye and try them out for a limited time. They don’t expect to get reduced prices on the latest version of a product they’ve paid for before. The retail model of a typical store from a consumer’s point of view is simple. You walk in, look for something you want, pay for it, and walk out. This is exactly how Apple’s physical stores work, and it is how their digital stores are designed to work as well.
Whether this is the way digital stores should work is another discussion, and one that is certainly well worth having. But if we assume that this is how Apple wants their stores to work, their policies for not allowing demos and upgrades make sense. In Apple’s physical stores, and indeed nearly all retail establishments, take-home trials and upgrade pricing is nearly unheard of. At best they offer demo units of products you can try, but only ones they choose and only while you remain at the store. Try insisting on half-price for the next-gen MacBook Pro with Retina display because you bought a 13” MacBook Air two years ago and see how far you get before you’re asked to leave.
Developers and longtime computer users may be used to the shareware, time trial, pay-full-price-once-upgrade-cheaply-forever model of buying and selling software, but regular people, the mass market that Apple continues to court first and foremost, aren’t. Adding demos (“I thought this app was free, but now it’s telling me I have to pay to keep using it? What a ripoff!”) and paid upgrades (“Wait, I bought this app last year and now I have to pay again to keep using it? Screw that!”) would introduce a layer of confusion and make buying an app a more arduous process, which would result in people buying fewer apps.
At least, that’s the rationale behind Apple’s decision not to implement them. To be clear: what I just wrote is not my opinion of how things should be. This is only my guess at Apple’s reasoning.
So if Apple is basing their digital stores on their physical ones, how should developers like Wil Shipley and Cabel Sasser handle the problem of making enough money from past and future customers in order to eat and make more cool software? I think Apple thinks they should take cues from how Apple handles their own software transitions: no upgrade pricing, just one reasonable price that is palatable to its target audience. Make your software great and easy to buy, and more people will buy it.
Yes, there are edge cases where some unlucky customers will fall through the cracks (those who bought your old app right before the new one came out) and those who won’t be happy to pay again for the “same” app regardless of how much time has passed (two words: “Tweetie 2”). And it would be great for customers and developers alike if Apple implemented a way to stop selling an old app but still let devs provide bug fixes. But Apple knows that while you can’t please everyone, you can make good money by pleasing the majority. And as long as the majority likes affordable, straightforward app-buying, that’s what they’ll continue to offer.
iOS 6: Our Complete Overview
Taking the stage at WWDC, Apple’s head of mobile software Scott Forstall kicked off his iOS 6 presentation noting how, with over 365 million iOS devices sold through March, Apple’s mobile software is doing very well in the market. The latest publicly available version, iOS 5, has been installed on over 80% of available devices. Released in October 2011, iOS 5 has seen exceptional adoption: over 140 million iMessage users have sent over 150 billion iMessages to date, making it over 1 billion on average every day. Directly integrated into iOS 5, Twitter saw a 3x growth increase, with over 10 billion tweets sent from iOS 5. The numbers go on and on.
There’s no denying on Apple’s part that iOS 5 has been a success for developers, the companies involved, and, ultimately, the users. iOS 6, previewed and released to developers as beta today, is a major new release that, with over 200 new features, will take iOS devices in “entirely new directions”.
Jump past the break for our complete overview of the next major release of iOS, shipping this Fall. Read more
Harry McCracken Reviews the Original Apple MessagePad→
Harry McCracken Reviews the Original Apple MessagePad
When Jobs decided to shut down the Newton division, color screens were still unaffordable, touch input was crude and wireless data didn’t get much more exciting than two-way paging. When he launched the first iPhone nine years later, technology allowed Apple to build the sort of devices it wanted to create in the 1990s, but couldn’t. He may have killed Newton, but he didn’t kill the dream behind it so much as press a giant pause button–and after finally spending quality time with a MessagePad, I’m more convinced than ever that he made the right call.
Apple’s MessagePads were devices that were both ahead of their time and poorly executed. It embodied everything Apple wanted to do — its tie-ins with the iPhones and iPads of today are clearly evident — but the Newton platform and the MessagePads just barely teetered on self-proclaimed success before their eventual hiatus. Despite the MessagePad’s lack of sales and its post-designation as a failed product, Harry McCracken re-visited John Sculley’s infamous product, reviewing the original MessagePad while investigating market demand and how the press received the product at the time of its unveiling. The three page article left me with some interesting take-aways about the climate of technology at the time of the early 90s, and how the Newton platform itself contributed to Apple’s later successes in both hardware and software design. A bulk of the article focuses on the technology introduced with the original MessagePad itself, but that insight is used to build a timeline of the product’s evolution whose concepts lead us to the devices we have today.
Image Credit: Time Techland
Game In-App Purchases: A Conflict Between Developer Economics & Goodwill
In-App Purchases for iOS games. It’s a bit of a sensitive topic really, not many people like them at all, and quite a few people hate them and the impact they have had on the iOS games market. But today I want to explore the reason for their prevalence and explain why it has become an important part of the market for developers. I also want to reframe the discussion from one of “In-App Purchases are a problem” to one where we consider how they are being used and what developers could do to improve their implementation.
Below the break is Part 1: The Economics, in which I tackle the reason for their prevalence and importance in the iOS games market. Following that is Part 2: “Developers and Goodwill To Customers” in which I discuss how they are being used and perhaps what might be some best practices.