This Week's Sponsor:

1Blocker

A Cleaner, Faster, and More Private Web Experience

Posts in stories

“Let’s Talk iPhone” Event Rumor Roundup

Tomorrow morning, Apple will hold a press conference in Cupertino, where CEO Tim Cook is widely expected to introduce the next-generation iPhone, a new iOS 5 feature called “Assistant”, and a refreshed line-up for Apple’s iPod family. However, speculation has been running wild in the past months as to whether Apple will announce not one, but two different iPhone models, or perhaps even an iPhone 4 revision to target the low-end market. With rumors of upcoming Facebook integration, voice-recognition features and cheaper iPhone 4 models, Apple’s “Let’s talk iPhone” may turn out to be bigger than expected. Or, as the name of the event suggests, perhaps the company will only focus on the iPhone, leaving other announcements for press releases and minor store updates in the next weeks.

In this post, we’ve rounded up the most recent October 4th rumors and predictions, some old rumors that haven’t been reported in a while, as well as last-minute speculation on what Apple will introduce tomorrow.

Come back tomorrow at 10 AM Pacific on MacStories for our coverage of Apple announcements.

iPhone 4S: This is the device that Apple is rumored to unveil as the “next-generation iPhone” tomorrow. Initially described as an “iPhone 5 inside an iPhone 4 case” for developers’ testing back in April, the iPhone 4S with codename N94 should pack an A5 processor, 1 GB of RAM, SGX 543MP2 GPU (same as iPad 2), GSM-CDMA dual mode, HSPA+, same 3.5-inch screen and design of the existing iPhone 4. The device will come with a new software featured called Assistant for voice-recognition, and possibly a new panoramic photo functionality, likely related to the (rumored) new 8 MP camera. The iPhone 4S name has been spotted on packaging for third-party cases, carrier websites and even Apple’s iTunes 10.5 beta. In the past months, several leaked parts and components have suggested the 4S will share the same design of the iPhone 4, only with largely improved specs.

iPhone 5: The confusion caused by the “iPhone 5” name is due to the fact that it’s been widely used to generally indicate the new iPhone (iPhone 5 comes after iPhone 4) as well as a “completely redesigned” device, as opposed to the iPhone 4S. In fact, several analysts and industry sources believe Apple will announce two new iPhones tomorrow, a 4S for the low-end, and a “real” iPhone 5 as top-line device. The iPhone 5 was rumored to feature a new design months ago, although over time some of its alleged specs have overlapped with the iPhone 4S (improved camera, A5 CPU, 8 MP camera). The distinctive rumor about the iPhone 5 is a new “teardrop” design with tapered edges and thinner form factor, possibly a bigger screen with edge-to-edge LCD and a new “elongated” Home button.

No parts or internal components of the iPhone 5 have been leaked, suggesting such device hasn’t entered production yet and won’t be announced tomorrow.

More iPhone 4S/5 rumors in our roundup.

Read more

Sandboxing and App Culture

Andy Ihnatko and Jason Snell have published two articles on Macworld over the weekend, covering the upcoming sandboxing restrictions that Apple will begin enforcing this November for Mac App Store apps (with its possible implications for Apple’s own technologies like AppleScript) and the broader subject of app culture, which in a way is related to sandboxing and might lead to an overly simplified software environment that some people imagined a year ago.

Ihnatko:

But I fret about AppleScript. I’ve come to think of it as a brilliant and infinitely-resourceful friend who’s been working for twenty years at a company that doesn’t seem to appreciate all of his or her contributions. I’m not worried about Apple killing AppleScript outright; I’m worried that the company doesn’t collectively feel like system automation is a feature that’s worth rescuing if the building ever caught on fire. Some day, Apple’s OS engineers will come up with an idea for a new system architecture that delivers a long list of benefits but which will require tons of work to prevent it from breaking AppleScript. And at that point, scripting on the Mac will finally die.

Snell:

Apple getting serious about app security is a good thing. Unfortunately, many of the apps we Mac users have come to know and love over the years require a broad amount of access to the system for a lot of their key functions. Not as much as SuperDuper, say, but still quite a lot. What I’m hearing from some Mac developers is that they may actually have to remove features from their apps, or reduce their functionality, in order to fit them inside Apple’s new sandbox.

Whilst after the Back to the Mac event in October 2010 we feared the Mac App Store’s lack of trials and license migration options for existing customers would kill the ecosystem and, ultimately, cause the Mac App Store to never take off, that hasn’t been the case. Apple is betting heavily on the Mac App Store as the future of digital distribution for desktop software, and it’s doing so by releasing Lion on the App Store, alongside several other apps (at a discounted price). Since January 6, when the Mac App Store opened for business, third-party developers have rushed to release their apps on it (most of the times with discounted prices) and Apple awarded those who did in time at last June’s WWDC. Some developers needed, obviously, to rethink how their apps would work with Apple’s Mac App Store rules.

The issue mentioned by Ihnatko and Snell isn’t a logistic problem with the infrastructure itself, it’s a real technical question that has arisen lately. How much will sandboxing entitlements affect the functionalities of existing apps? An example is the aforementioned 1Password, whose Mac App Store version won’t allow you to keep its database sync file in Dropbox if that folder is not under your User’s directory. The change wasn’t well received, but that’s just the way it works now. Starting November, it’s safe to assume other apps will need to be updated with this kind of tweaks – a restriction here, some documents can’t be accessed there, and so forth.

You can see how sandboxing, security and app culture are related in Apple’s App Store vision. The concept of “app” has evolved over time to indicate a piece of software that does one thing well, and Apple is doubling down on this new idea by enhancing security (which is a good thing) and making sure an app is limited “to just those operations that it needs to perform”. App and security have come full circle.

In the past nine months, the Mac App Store did just fine for the majority of developers without trials and demo versions. Then Apple introduced in-app purchases and delta updates. Every major change creates victims – those who couldn’t settle down in a new environment – and winners, literally. What will be interesting to observe in the upcoming months isn’t sandboxing itself of Apple’s evilness, but the trade-off third-party developers will seemingly have to come to terms with if they want to keep their apps on the Store., with the same degree of power and innovation we’ve become accustomed to in the past decades.

“Universal Save” for iOS Apps

Ted Landau at The Mac Observer covers an issue I’ve mentioned several times in the past, which Apple has partially fixed with the last releases of iOS: saving documents and moving them across apps. Specifically, Landau notes that the lack of a “universal save” option for documents that can be read by third-party apps (PDFs, text files, images) leads to an annoying and pretty much useless duplication of content. Apple has implemented an “Open In…” menu to send files to other apps, but the file that’s being sent is a copy. iOS apps can’t read and modify a source file from a single location.

Currently, iOS does not come close to matching the advantages of Mac OS X here. There is no way to have a unifying folder in iOS that contains related documents from different apps. There is no way to have a document easily opened in different apps, where any changes you make in one app are instantly accessible by all the compatible apps. You can come closer with Dropbox, but closer is not good enough here.

That’s annoying for me, too, as I constantly switch between apps to get my work done, and it’s not like I don’t enjoy trying new ones. This typically leads to some sort of geek frustration – why can’t Apple build an invisible layer that lets Elements edit a text document from Evernote and Pages access the same file?

For Ted and me, yes, being able to avoid file duplication and tedious exporting processes would be nice. But I do wonder how much does Apple care about such functionalities considering the underlying paradigms of iOS and the upcoming iCloud functionalities of iOS 5. For one, Apple really cares about application sandboxing: each app has its own controlled data environment and only a few items can be shared between multiple apps. Apple cares about sandboxing so much that they’re bringing it to the Mac App Store. Would iOS sandboxing allow for a source file to be edited and “saved” by multiple apps? Where does that file belong to, technically? Would iOS apps be able to write specific metadata to it? And what happens if, hypothetically, this “shared” file needs to be pushed back and forth with iCloud?

I’m no iOS developer, but I can see this proposed “universal save” model becoming an issue when on iOS, unlike the Mac, there’s no visible, centralized Finder location to write and read files from. In fact, Ted is right when he says that the convenience of a Mac is being able to create “a folder that will contain all the assorted files needed to put his column together”. That’s made easy by the Finder – but on iOS? Apple allows third-party developers to plug into the Music library or Camera Roll, yet there’s no Apple app to “create text file here” or “save webpage from Safari here”. Again, the lack of an iOS Finder would require “universal save” to work inside any app. iDisk could have been a centralized location for files – it could have even been Apple’s “answer to Dropbox” – but it’s not going to be supported by iCloud.

And then there’s the conceptual issue of an iOS device being the app that you’re using. When you use Pages on an iPad, the iPad is a word processor. When you browse the web with Safari, you’re holding the web in your hands. On a technical level, this app console model is represented by sandboxing and one-way “Open In” menus, and soon iCloud-based documents that allow multiple versions of the same app to access files. Would a “universal save” option somehow break the illusion that you’re holding an app, reminding us that we’re using a device with multiple layers of abstractions including a filesystem?

I don’t know. I believe I’d like this feature in theory, but I wonder if there would also be a considerable trade-off to accept.

On Amazon, Ecosystems, And “iPad Killers”

Earlier today Amazon announced a completely revamped Kindle family, which includes the standard $79 Kindle, the $99 Kindle touch, and the much-anticipated $199 Kindle Fire tablet. Ad-supported options and hands-on coverage aside, I’d like to quickly touch upon a common mistake in today’s tech headlines – that the Kindle Fire will “kill” the iPad.

First off, Amazon gets it: they know an ecosystem has to scale to different devices and operating systems, so they diversified their approach to ebook reading and media consumption with three different sets of Kindle (Keyboard/$79 Kindle, Touch, Fire) all tied to a single defining feature: your Amazon.com account.

In discussing Microsoft’s approach to the concept of ecosystem when compared to Apple’s, I wrote:

In Apple’s vision, separate operating systems can live inside the same ecosystem. The single defining aspect of this vision is the Apple ID, which on iOS devices, Macs, PCs, and web browsers gives you access to:

- Songs, Movies, TV Shows, Books, Podcasts;

- Apps;

- The Apple Online Store;

- Your iOS device’s location (still free with MobileMe);

- Email, Calendar, Contact and data sync with MobileMe;

- Your desktop operating system (with Lion’s Apple ID support).

Compare this to Amazon, which is doing the following:

  • Amazon Prime: faster shipping times and Instant Video;
  • Amazon MP3;
  • Amazon Kindle;
  • Amazon Appstore;
  • Amazon Web Services.

Amazon is building an ecosystem, and all you need to access these services is a single Amazon.com account, possibly connected to a credit card. Like Apple, it may be difficult to keep everything in one account, but it’s not like the average consumer needs all the functionalities of Web Services anyway. Furthermore, Amazon controls its platforms with the web infrastructure they’ve created, and the newly announced Silk browser is the perfect example of how Amazon should also be able to somehow control and optimize web traffic operated by its devices.

There’s more. Amazon gets it because they’re offering a limited choice of devices to use with their ecosystem. Many often cite Apple’s product line-up as an example of simplicity and “just one model” philosophy, but if you think about it, there are multiple ways to get started with iOS:

  • iPhone (two colors, different storage options, carrier variations);
  • iPod touch (different storage options);
  • iPad (two colors, different storage options, carrier variations).

and the Mac (all with multiple configuration options available):

  • MacBook Air;
  • MacBook Pro;
  • iMac;
  • Mac mini;
  • Mac Pro.

Amazon may kill off some members of the Kindle family soon (DX perhaps?), but here’s what they offer today to access the Amazon.com ecosystem:

  • Kindle;
  • Kindle Keyboard;
  • Kindle DX;
  • Kindle Touch;
  • Kindle Fire.

The similarities in the underlying concepts of “ecosystem” and “uniqueness” between Apple and Amazon are clear, but there are some key difference that many people don’t seem to properly consider when referring to the latest Kindle Fire as an “iPad killer”. Assuming that by “killer” they actually imagine a scenario where people will stop buying iPads altogether and start seeing the Fire as the only option, Amazon would still need Apple’s retail power at an international level. These people that write “iPad killer” seem to forget that the iPad is available in 64 countries today. Amazon’s Kindle Fire will ship November 15th in the US. So let’s put the “killer” argument behind us once and for all.

Amazon is about to launch a product that may end up being a feasible alternative to the iPad for some people, a product shares several similarities with Apple’s approach to the digital ecosystem. I have no doubt Amazon will sell millions of these new Kindles, and I think the Fire in particular will prove popular with families, readers, movie watchers, gamers – average consumers that may prefer a cheaper device integrated with the Amazon.com account they already have and use daily.

It’s hard to form a complete thought on Amazon’s new strategy because they’re just getting started. The unification process of Amazon’s ecosystem and diversification of unique devices begins today, and the Kindle Fire will ship in less than two months. It’s hard to imagine whether Amazon’s long-term plan is “trying to be like Apple” with international releases, rich App Store, deals with music labels, partnerships with carriers, and so forth. It’s also worth considering that Amazon isn’t completely independent from others yet, as the Kindle Fire runs on a modified version of Android 2.x with possible legal implications in patent fees. And more importantly, it doesn’t even make sense to “judge” the Kindle Fire right now as a winner or PlayBook when we even haven’t tried one. But two months from now, right ahead of the holiday season, let’s picture the following situation: assuming an average consumer interested in reading, listening to music, playing games, watching movies and browsing the web has $500 to spend, will he pick an iPad or a Kindle Fire? And is there a reason to pick both?

That’s where ecosystems prove their strengths.

Instagram Hits 10 Million Users in 355 Days - A Brief Retrospective

The Instagram developers have announced their photo-sharing service has now 10 million registered users:

Last October, we launched Instagram live in the App Store. Today, less than one year later, we’re happy to announce that the Instagram community now consists of over 10 million registered users.

The first version of Instagram, which I reviewed here, was released on October 6th, 2010, exactly 355 days ago. Last week, Instagram released a major 2.0 upgrade, which includes live filters, and updated UI, and several optimizations to the code. Here’s a quick look back at Instagram’s history in the past 12 months:

- October 6th, 2010: Instagram released on the App Store.

- December 7th, 2010: Instagram gets inline viewer on Twitter.com.

- December 21st, 2010: Instagram reaches 1 million registered users.

- January 27th, 2011: Instagram 1.1 is out with hashtag support and some optimizations.

- January 28th, 2011: Twitterrific, a popular third-party Twitter client for the Mac and iOS, adds native Instagram support for photo URLs.

- February 8th, 2011: Instagram announces its official API.

- February 26th, 2011: The first results of Instagram’s API are in.

- March 10th, 2011: Flipboard, Apple’s iPad app of the year, adds native Instagram integration.

- March 11th, 2011: Instagram 1.5 brings new effects and News Feed.

- April 2nd, 2011: Here comes the first Instagram client for Mac based on the API.

- April 15th, 2011: Instagram 1.6 focuses on performances.

- May 16th, 2011: Instagram 1.7 gets a new profile view.

- May 23rd, 2011: Instagram announces 4.25 million users.

- May 26th, 2011: Instagram 1.8 improves the comment section.

- August 3rd, 2011: 150 million photos have been uploaded to Instagram.

- September 20th, 2011: Instagram 2.0 released.

- September 26th, 2o11: Instagram hits 10 million users.

From the timeline above, I had to exclude several of the minor updates Instagram released, or amazing third-party apps that plug into the service to extend its capabilities (not to mention celebrities and brands). And as with last year’s original release, Instagram is still an iPhone-only app.

Has there ever been an iPhone app with such terrific third-party and user support in just 355 days?

My Must-Have Mac Apps, 2011 Edition

One year after my “Must Have 25 Mac Apps” article, I believe it’s time to revisit that list of software I said I would install every time on a new Mac.

A lot of things have changed since September 2010. For one, Mac apps can now be distributed through the Mac App Store, which has proven to be a feasible and reliable platform for developers to showcase their apps to OS X users. The Mac App Store comes built into Snow Leopard since version 10.6.6, and over the past months we’ve taken a look at different numbers and stats showing how Apple’s youngest storefront is set to fundamentally revolutionize app distribution on desktop computers. But the Mac App Store’s release leads to another change happened in the last 12 months, and that’s Lion.

Originally previewed at the “Back to the Mac” event in October 2010, Lion was publicly released in late July after a round of betas that started becoming available to Mac developers since February. Lion has enabled Apple to bring new features to the Mac App Store such as delta updates for apps and in-app purchases, not to mention the fact that all new Macs sold since July 20 have Lion pre-installed, and thus the Mac App Store. At a developer level, Lion is allowing Objective-C coders and OS X designers to come up with new solutions that take advantage of Apple’s latest technologies such as natural scrolling, push notifications, popover controls, full-screen mode, and Versions. Lion has spawned a new breed of Mac software that it’s just starting to leave a sign in the average consumers’ minds, who are increasingly demanding and looking forward to applications that have been properly enhanced for Lion.

And last, there are new Macs in Apple’s line-up. Since September 2010, Apple has updated all its Mac models (except the Mac Pro) and discontinued the white MacBook, the most obvious victim of Apple’s new crown jewel – the MacBook Air. New Macs come with trackpads specifically geared towards Lion’ multi-touch support, and the new Sandy Bridge CPUs by Intel make the process of booting a Mac, and even switching between applications faster than ever.

In a way, the “September 2011” Apple is both identical and different from the company we were covering last year. But title changes and cloud strategies aside – how does the new Mac ecosystem affect the apps I listed on this site a year ago? Read more

Keep it Memorable, Stupid!

Image credit: Done by Emily Carlin on Flickr

KIMS, unlike KISS (Keep it simple, Stupid!), is removing the notion that we have to toss out our complicated, but memorable systems in favor of simple workflows. I think throwing away what works is the wrong way to go about changing your workflow or lifestyle for the better.

In looking for a simpler way to do something you’ll be presented with tools, pitched ideas, and told that your quality of life will be better if you take this system you have now and simplify it. I think the big problem is that people tend to confuse the words simple and minimalism. To say I should simplify my workflow is to say I should throw out my system because it’s inefficient. That might be true if I was to compare how productive I am to how productive you are. However, our jobs are likely different and even if they were the same, it’s like comparing how well I run to a guy who’s been running in marathons for the last twenty years. You can only accurately measure and reference yourself!

Where I make my case is that you shouldn’t toss a memorable system for the sake of minimalism. Text files for example are extremely minimal, but not many people want to go commando and start setting up areas of focus in Dropbox, when tags and journals in Evernote are much easier to manage for lots of people. You’re told you should do this thing because you’ll ultimately be more productive or you’ll remove a point of stress and clutter in your life, but I have a feeling that the transition and “attempt” (because you’ll never really stick with this minimal system) is going to be a point of stress itself.

Read more

An Ecosystem’s Uniqueness and Similarities

Over the past 24 hours I’ve seen a lot of words thrown around about Windows 8, ecosystems, operating systems, and what should Apple do in regards to Microsoft’s all-in-one attempt to deny the post-PC era altogether by unifying PCs and post-PC devices in a single OS.

There’s some great commentary about this already out there. What I’d like to briefly touch upon is this: does Microsoft’s approach with Windows 8 confirm a somewhat popular argument – that Apple is ultimately breaking, not unifying, the experience with the distinction between iOS and OS X?

It’s easy to look at the issue from such a perspective. If Windows 8 runs on all devices – let’s pass on Windows Phone 7 for smartphones – then that’s most definitely a real ecosystem, not Apple’s. As iOS and OS X are two different operating systems (different distribution methods, installers, frameworks, GUIs, native apps, names) running on at least three different form factors (the phone, tablet, and laptop), Apple’s “lock-in” strategy comes out defeated in the confrontation against Windows 8.

I don’t want to argue on which OS is “better” (a definition that doesn’t even make sense, right now) or which one will sell more copies; rather, I believe there are a few key areas that several early commenters of the Windows 8 Developer Preview failed to highlight.

In Apple’s vision, separate operating systems can live inside the same ecosystem. The single defining aspect of this vision is the Apple ID, which on iOS devices, Macs, PCs, and web browsers gives you access to:

- Songs, Movies, TV Shows, Books, Podcasts;

- Apps;

- The Apple Online Store;

- Your iOS device’s location (still free with MobileMe);

- Email, Calendar, Contact and data sync with MobileMe;

- Your desktop operating system (with Lion’s Apple ID support).

For as much as it’s difficult to keep this all together with a single Apple ID, that’s what it does. Soon, Apple will introduce iCloud to overhaul MobileMe’s syncing capabilities and turn them into seamless pushing of documents, data, and media across devices.

In fact, you may remember Steve Jobs demoted the Mac to just a device back at WWDC. Why? Because the Mac isn’t more “important” than an iPhone or iPad anymore. The ecosystem (and iCloud is a big part of that) is what matters now. Yet this vision doesn’t imply multiple OSes mean separate ecosystems: iCloud is one, and it works on iOS, OS X, Windows PCs, and the web.

Sign of Apple’s appreciation of a single ecosystem can be found in the iWork suite, the Apple Online Store, and even Ping.

In this context, Apple’s strategy isn’t too dissimilar from Microsoft’s. After all, Redmond has got its own set of web platforms, too, and Windows 8 will feature an App Store and other kinds of tablet/PC integration. But there is a key difference that some people, when comparing Windows 8 to “Apple”, surprisingly omit: based on what we’ve seen (that is, the first, incomplete, buggy Developer Preview), Apple’s ecosystem strategy is nothing like Microsoft’s.

Apple wants to build a single ecosystem by keeping its OSes separate. They want to do so because they believe the similarities that keep the ecosystem together are equally important as the uniqueness of each operating system – its strengths and virtues and hardware features.

Today I asked on Twitter: Would Apple fans applaud an iPad that runs both iOS and OS X? By far, the response was “no”. The reason’s simple: iOS was built with multi-touch in mind, whereas touching a Mac’s screen is still awkward (and doesn’t work). In its very own nature, OS X works with clicks and drags, not taps and swipes. Lion epitomizes Apple’s intention to enable some kind of deeper touch interaction with Macs sometime in the future, but the fact still holds true: you can’t touch OS X. iOS and Lion look similar in order to carefully transition the users from a platform to another in the ecosystem stream, but they’re unique and true to their own interfaces, interaction schemes, and destination hardware.

You will be able, however, to touch Windows 8 on a tablet. Or to scroll Windows’ Metro with a mouse wheel on a desktop PC. And here’s where I believe Apple and Microsoft, ultimately, diverge: Apple is creating an ecosystem that works with multiple OSes, provided these OSes run on the devices they belong to. For Microsoft, on the other hand, Windows itself is the ecosystem, and that has to be integrated on every device. There is a subtle difference between ecosystems and OS uniqueness, and you’ll be the judge of which strategy will win over the other two years from now.

There are several ways to build an ecosystem. I don’t know if I’ll like Microsoft’s one, but I’m sure there will be both subtle and key differences to consider when comparing it to Apple’s future strategy.

Apple: A Step Ahead, and Three To The Side

Here’s a thought: Apple isn’t ahead of its competitors only in terms of hardware design, software, and product marketing. When Apple takes a step ahead, it also takes three more to the side – and that’s what’s helping them shape the industry today.

We often refer to Apple as a company “ahead of the competition” with products like the iPhone, iPad, OS X and iTunes. I believe what’s driving the single “step ahead” isn’t the (successful) combination of products and customer satisfaction – it’s the company itself, its culture, the image they want to show to the world. The “step ahead” is Apple’s DNA.

But consider the three steps to the side that help Apple differentiate itself from the competition, and roll out products and services that people are actually willing to pay for. These three steps are taken in regards of hardware, software, and the overall message the interplay of both has to deliver.

Hardware: iPhone, iPad, iPod, Mac. These products have an attractive design, and they’re the result of Apple’s deals to secure components before anyone else at a lower price, for the long-term. That’s why it took months for competitors to figure out multi-touch after the first iPhone, and why Ultrabooks still can’t match the MacBook Air.

Software: iOS, OS X, iTunes, iCloud. Software is the soul to Apple’s products, it is the reason why Apple hardware “just works”.

Message: Apple wants to make the best products in the world. Products they can sell for a profit, and make people happy with at the same time. Through the right combination of prices, attractive design, and marketing, the “interplay of hardware and software” is what defines Apple’s message.

Apple strives to innovate, but wants to do so by being unique with its own hardware, software, and message. Competitors often try to take their risks with either hardware, software, or the message, but they can’t do all three at the same time.

This is where competitors and Apple stand:

You can also think of “Innovation” as “Liberal Arts” and “Time” as “Technology”. When Apple takes a major leap forward, it does so because it’s in their DNA to innovate and sit at the intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts; alongside the single breakthrough in terms of innovation, they take three equally disruptive steps to the side to stand out from their competitors thanks to the great efforts they’ve gone through to advance in technology.

Technology evolves with time. Apple’s three steps allow them to have a considerable time advantage – this is the reason why many phones today still can’t match the original iPhone from 2007.

Four years ago, Steve Jobs said:

iPhone is a revolutionary and magical product that is literally five years ahead of any other mobile phone.

But is still ahead just because Apple kept iterating on the original idea?

Technology isn’t a 100 meters sprint race. Companies that want to be successful can’t keep running the same race, more of the same following more of the same. Just take a look at RIM. Apple knows that technology alone is not enough. And thus evolving with time alone (upgrading the same product with new hardware) won’t matter much if risks aren’t taken other directions as well.

Apple reinvented itself as it was moving ahead. Steve Jobs, announcing the iPad in January 2010:

Everybody uses a laptop and a smartphone. And a question has arisen lately: is there room for a third category of device in the middle? Something that’s between a laptop and a smartphone. And of course we’ve pondered this question for years as well. The bar’s pretty high. In order to really create a new category of devices, those devices are going to have to be far better at doing some key tasks. Better than a laptop. Better than a smartphone. Now, some people have thought…that’s a netbook. The problem is, netbooks aren’t better at anything. They’re slow, they have low quality displays and they run clunky old PC software. So, they’re not better than a laptop at anything. They’re just cheaper. They’re just cheap laptops. We don’t think they’re a new category of device.

Progress, ultimately, is adaptation. This started with the iPhone in 2007, and ends with iCloud in 2011. When iOS 5 and iCloud come out this Fall, there will be a brand new vision – and therefore, kind of adaptation – moving forward. A company that constantly adapts to an ever-changing market generates desires for the new, whilst simplicity and usability lead to customer satisfaction. At a higher level, it is the interplay of progress and simplicity that keeps Apple growing.

Technology and liberal arts aren’t mutually exclusive.