All Articles in Editorial

When Google first mentioned ChromeOS, we figured it was their reaction to launching Android, then seeing Palm come out with webOS, and smacking their heads — they could have done that with V8! (What, too nerdy?)

Lame JavaScript rendering engine jokes aside, the very traditional Android never really seemed like the OS Google should, or even wanted, to give to the world. ChromeOS does. (For those unfamiliar, when I guessed what it would be before the unveiling yesterday — Brin and Page booting Linux which then auto-started the WebKit-based Chrome browser — that wasn’t a joke. It’s really what I — and many others — thought they’d do, and pretty much what they did. Casey at Android Central has a bigger write up on it if you want the details).

Read the rest of this entry »

Much has been said about Verizon’s latest addition to their smarthphone arsenal, the Motorola Droid, some good and some bad. I decided to pick one up and decide for myself. It’s been a little less than a week that I’ve spent with my Droid and I must say, I’ve actually come away quite impressed. Now by no means am I saying the Droid is the best looking device on the market, nor is it the perfect smartphone — that simply does not exist. But what we have here is a very solid effort by Motorola. Sure Apple is at the top of the game in regards to UI, ease of use, speed, etc… but they have to play some major catch up with the release of their next iPhone — namely on display, notifications, and multitasking.

For the full run down follow me after the break! Read the rest of this entry »

Why is it easier to make a great Twitter client for Apple’s iPhone than for Google Android phones like the new Verizon DROID? After Robert Scoble wrote a typically impassioned post entitled The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone, and used Twitter clients as an example, Thomas Marban of Android’s premiere Twitter client, Twidroid, responded:

one of the main reasons why UIs are unequally inferior are not only the way you build apps (open vs. closed hw/sw system) and the SDK itself but also marginal to non-existing UI standards, no ready-made drag & drop UI items, variations in carrier- & device firmware, hard- & software input, screen sizes, international customizations, modded phones, rooted phones and last but not least completely different expectations among users and the linux’ish target group itself. in a nutshell: beautiful mess. obviously, all these reasons eat up a huge pile of time that one could better spend with improving UX and polishing the interface. those who started early with android development have learned and are still learning it the hard way, just like they did with win 3.1 back in the days.

John Gruber of Daring Fireball, in Lots of Excuses comments:

That doesn’t sound like someone who plans to ever ship something of the caliber of Tweetie, Birdfeed, or Twitterrific. From what I’ve seen of Twidroid, it’s not even as good as Craig Hockenberry’s original version of Twitterrific for iPhone, which was written as a jailbreak app before the iPhone officially supported third-party software. If Android hardware diversity is already a problem for third-party developers, it’s only going to get worse.

This also highlights the advantages Apple has given iPhone developers. Not only is the iPhone based on OS X, but the development tools are based on Xcode and Interface Builder, and while not as many developers are likely already familiar with Cocoa touch as, say, developers might be with Android’s language(s) (or web developers may be for the Palm Pre), existing Mac developers can make those tools sing. And, given the SDK Apple provided, even new developers get a huge head start in terms of functions and user interface elements.

Sure, that means there’s a lower barrier of entry to creating poor iPhone apps, but it also means great developers aren’t wasting their time re-inventing UI wheels, or fighting the OS to do right by their apps. They investing that time in making great apps.

So it’s November, have you seen the iPhone 3.2 beta? We’ve been over this before — iPhone 2.2 beta was released on September 25, 2008 and the final version was made available on November 21. So where’s 3.2?

Yes, Apple hasn’t announced iPhone 3.2, so we can’t really call it delayed, but then Apple never announces anything in advance — all we have are historical patterns and market realities.

Was Apple waiting to integrate iTunes LP and iTunes Extras? They’ve done that for Apple TV 3.0 already. Where’s the iPhone and iPod touch love?

We’ve already postulated what other features they could be exploring, including Google Maps updates with Latitude (and now, of course, Google Maps Navigation), but given the strained relations, rejection of the former, and brand-new beta status of the latter, 3.2 might be too early. Likewise, Zune HD competitive features like 720p video out.

With the onslaught of new Android software, like HTC Sense UI, MotoBlur, and Android 2.0, could Apple have decided to raise the level of this update? A few minor tweaks were certainly possible for a standard schedule iPhone 3.2, but would Apple delay their frequent update cycle in order to make a more impressive version?

We’re not going to get our hopes up, but if Apple is getting ambitious, if Scott Forstall and team are going to “blow us away”, we’re willing wait. If not, then where is it?

Verizon and Motorola’s upcoming Droid handset is getting a lot of press, here, there, everywhere, and one of the negative points that’s come up — in relation to the iPhone — is the Droid’s lack of multi-touch gestures like pinch-to-zoom. (TiPb mentioned it a couple days ago as well).

Some might complain about Verizon nickel-and-diming users by charging an extra $15/month for Exchange support, or that given Verizon’s CDMA technology the Droid can’t multitask a phone call and a data connection (so if, for example, you’re using the new Google Maps Navigator and a need to talk on the phone at the same time, you’re only as good as your last cache). Others are honing in on the Android app space limitations, or just the limited apps (NSFW). But what makes multi-touch so intriguing is that it’s a bit of a mystery as to why the Droid doesn’t support it. Of course, the G1 didn’t support it either, but Android 2.0 is supposed to contain the API’s to do it, and the non-Verizon (GSM, for sale outside the US) version — called the Motorola Milestone seems to do it, if not smoothly (yet?).

Apple’s massive multi-touch patent portfolio is cited as a reason, both now for the Droid and then for the T-Mobile G1. Either Google, while CEO Eric Schmidt was still on the board, agreed not to violate them, or fears litigating them. So, they build in the functionality and let 3rd parties take advantage — and the risk that goes with it — if they so choose.

But why then does the Palm Pre have multi-touch gesture support on Sprint in the US? Wouldn’t the same patents apply? Sure. However, patents are like nukes. They can be deadly unless the guy you’re pointing yours at is pointing equally deadly ones back at you. As both TiPb and PreCentral.net have posted for a while — and Palm has explicitly stated — Palm has a heckuva mobile patent arsenal.

Blustering about lawsuits aside, Apple suing Palm (or vice versa) brings mutually assured patent destruction down on the both of them. While Apple is arguably filthy rich and Palm pauper poor, they might not want the expense or the hassle given Palm’s current market position. Verizon and Google, however, is another matter, especially since Google has been in the mobile space nowhere near as long as Palm, and likely doesn’t have the same type of core mobile patent portfolio in their pocket to assure the same type of stalemate.

At the end of the day, only the top executives (and their lawyers) at Apple, Google, and Palm know for sure, but that’s our guess.

It’s a shame, of course, because the iPhone’s multi-touch gestures are natural to the point where they should arguably be considered default for all capacitive touch screen devices. Apple settled “look and feel” lawsuits with Microsoft over the windows/mouse/pointer interface over a decade ago. They likely consider multi-touch a similar competitive advantages, however, and Steve Jobs said as much at Macworld 2007 when he introduced Apple’s implementation of it:

“And boy, have we patented it.”

The internets are a rocking with posts about the iPhone’s App Store unofficially hitting 100,000 apps, but while we wait for official word from Steve Jobs, the blogsphere is also debating the important of the sheer quantity of those apps, and whether that’s more important that quality.

It isn’t.

Scoble (and others, I think MacBreak Weekly covered this earlier) suggests that the huge number of apps makes for a greater chance each individual user will find that unique assortment that best fills their needs. In other words, while everyone has the same iPhone, they don’t all have the same apps, and those apps essentially create a personalize experience — a different iPhone — for each user.

What’s more, those must-have apps, and the money, effort, and time spent in acquiring, setting up, and becoming proficient in them, creates a cost that prohibits users switching to another platform. To go from iPhone to Android, in Scoble’s example, means you lose Tweetie, Tap Tap Revenge, Photoshop.com, NASDAQ, etc. (Never mind if you’ve bought Navigon or other, high-priced content).

John Gruber, for his part, asks if the App Store is popular because the iPhone is great, or is the iPhone great because the App Store is popular.

The number of apps already in the store — and, even more so, the momentum with which new ones are being added — almost certainly guarantees the continuing popularity of the iPhone and iPod Touch for the next few years. But Windows is proof that popularity doesn’t guarantee market-leading quality.

But the iPhone isn’t Windows. Neither popularity levels not quantity of software can be used to balance that particular equation.

Unlike the iPhone, Windows has never been a poster-child for great user experience (Windows 7 may alter that, but it’s just going to market now). Fact of the matter is, the iPhone debuted in 2007 without an App Store at all, and sold for the entire first year (until the launch of the iPhone 3G and iPhone OS 2.0) without an App Store. It sold on the strength of its user experience.

It’s that focus on usability that makes the iPhone great, and that in turn makes many of the apps great. Just like with the Mac, Apple has built in core technologies and development tools to handle a lot of the heavy lifting. So, while it still takes the very best developers to make the very best apps, even fair-to-middling developers can make apps that are surprisingly usable.

Those great apps, combined with a large quantity of usable if not inspired apps, is what makes the iPhone so compelling. The App Store itself is proof. Where Palm, Windows Mobile, Nokia, and RIM have had apps — many thousands of them — as well, it took Apple to create a single place, with a single home screen icon, to find and acquire them all. If it was just quantity, Apple would have had a hard time catching up to them.

Gizmodo has an interesting post up on Apple’s iPhone App Store, and how it might be headed straight down the road to oblivion. Their basic take is that downward price pressure, users conditioned by iTunes to expect $1 songs and $2 TV shows, Apple recommending (and wanting) cheaper prices, high development costs with low chances for visibility, all combine to put iPhone (and iPod touch) development on the endangered species list. Further, yesterday’s announcement of in-app purchase for free apps, they argue, makes things like the Top Lists nebulous going forward.

And it doesn’t just apply to the iPhone:

don’t forget, Palm and Android fans, this App Store Effect sends ripples well beyond the App Store. Customers expect to see functionally identical apps priced the same way across platforms, because to us, that’s what makes sense. Can devs really afford to port an app to the webOS to sell to the tens of thousands of Pre owners, when they’re expected to tag it with iPhone prices, calculated for a base of millions? Whether by Apple’s design or totally by accident, everyone who doesn’t own an iPhone will suffer for it.

See their chart, above, showing the pricing differences between platforms. Some would argue the market can correct for anything. If premium developers leave in frustration, users will tire of CrApps, a premium developer will sense the voice, fill it, make a killing, and other premium developers will flock back. Others believe Apple controls the market and so it’s their job to make it as good a market for developers — and ultimately users — as possible through proper policies and procedures (BlackBerry, for example, won’t allow paid apps under $2.99 into the App World).

We’ve all discussed this a lot in the past, and no doubt will continue to discuss it moving forward, but give Giz’s article a read and let us know what you think.

Dear Apple, if you’re releasing a new wireless keyboard, why not take this opportunity to make it work with iPhone? If the rumor-mill is to be believed, you’re set to release new iMacs and Mac Minis (and hopefully a 27″ or 30″ LED display!) perhaps as soon as next week (hey, there was a Spotlight Turns to Notebooks event last October!). And if the FCC filings are accurate, you’ll have a new multitouch mouse and wireless keyboard to go with them. Apple, in the name of everyone whining on the internet for it — let that wireless keyboard work with the iPhone.

You introduced enhanced peripheral functionality last March during the iPhone 3.0 SDK event, including dock and Bluetooth access, but you didn’t add the Bluetooth profile or any drivers for keyboards. That led to many sad, irritated messages sent our way via comments, email, and tweets. Now, with MMS in the US finally off your miss-list, wouldn’t it be nice to scratch external keyboard off that list as well? Since we haven’t even seen a beta for iPhone 3.2 yet, mightn’t you not introduce said drivers there?

No need to answer now. We’ll just wait for your next event (which we’ll be liveblogging right here at TiPb, ‘natch) and hope for the best.

Is Apple charging the big record labels $10,000 to create iTunes LP packages for them, and outright refusing to make the service available to the indies? That’s the allegation Gizmodo brought forward, based on a conversation with one such indie, who heard it from their labels digital distribution manager, who claims to have heard it from their iTunes rep.

Enter internet brouhaha. Some sites are calling the $10,000 fee exorbitant, and the lockout of indies untenable. Other sites are pointing out how much good quality interactive web development costs, and highlighting that Apple has only rolled out 12 iTunes LP’s so far.

Here’s the thing: when Apple announced iTunes LP, despite the fact that they’re using the fairly open WebKit framework to make it, they didn’t announce the specific TuneKit implementation as an open format, they didn’t announce an SDK, and they didn’t say they were offering it to every artist immediately.

It looks to us like this is just a case of Apple being Apple. iTunes LP is an experiment, clearly near-and-dear to them from Steve Jobs on down, and they’re starting with a few, select albums and trying to provide as premium and experience as possible. That kind of development work isn’t cheap, especially when you want to keep the numbers low at first, and it also means it isn’t open to everyone. Heck, it only even works on iTunes on your Windows or Mac PC at this point!

If they’re still nailing down the format specs, creating the development tools, and getting to set to roll out versions that will work with iPods, iPhones, and mythical, still unreleased Apple TV and iTablet devices, then this makes the kind of sense that does. And we’re guessing, when the dust settles and all the above is in place, Apple will open up iTunes LP and roll the format out wide, even to indies, because it will do what Apple really intends iTunes to do — help sell Apple hardware.

We were going to post some long preachy editorial about Tweetie 2.0 being a paid upgrade but it looks like everyblog and their siblingsite has already done that. So here’s our quick take:

We’re buying it, and happily. We asked developer Atebits why they went the route of a new app vs. an in-app purchase, and the response is worth quoting:

If all I were adding were features, then the in-app purchase route would have been an option (but then again, if all I were offering were features, I’d probably release it as a free update). Tweetie 2 is a fresh start, 100% rewritten, shares no code with the original . The only thing they have in common is the name.

So bottom line, Apple doesn’t (yet?) provide a mechanism for paid upgrades, and in-app purchase allows for more content, not for replacing an old app with a whole new one. So, yeah. This is the option Atebits took, and it works for us. New great app, same great price. And it is a great app, one which took considerable time and effort to make, and we want to support that because we want the developer to be successful enough to make Tweetie 3.0 just as big an update next time.

Sure, scale factors into that — $3 is a no brainer, so if you ask us what we’ll do if a GPS app wants $100 again next year, well… We’ll light those torches when and if we come to them.