| rss2email.ru | На что подписаться? | Управление подпиской |
 |  TheAppleBlogTheAppleBlog, published by and for the day-to-day Apple user, is a prominent source for news, reviews, walkthroughs, and real life application of all Apple products. http://theappleblog.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- Facebook App Developer: Apple Doesn't Trust Us
Have you been checking the App Store on your iPhone for that lovely little red badge that signals available updates? I have. I want the Facebook app update that might – finally – prompt me to want to use Facebook regularly. Y'know, like the kids these days do.Not quite two weeks ago Joe Hewitt, the developer of Facebook's iPhone application, submitted the latest version for review. The timeline here matters; in Apple's published answers to the FCC's questions, they assert that the average turnaround for an application – from initial submission to publication – is 14 days (assuming the app is not rejected due to technical problems or a violation of the Terms and Conditions of the App Store).
If we hit the 14 day mark and there's no sign of the new Facebook app in the store – and no blog article, tweet or Facebook update from Hewitt on the app's status – tech pundits everywhere will gleefully rub Apple's metaphorical nose in it. With all the recent drama surrounding Google Voice’s App Store refusal, the world's tech press is watching how Apple’s approval process even more closely than it was before.
Hewitt Speaks Out
Hewitt expressed his own unhappiness with Apple's submission/approval policies in his blog yesterday. His article "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" provides eye-opening insight into the frustration he (and presumably thousands of other developers) feels with the current state of affairs;
"I have only one major complaint with the App Store, and I can state it quite simply: the review process needs to be eliminated completely.
Does that sound scary to you, imagining a world in which any developer can just publish an app to your little touch screen computer without Apple’s saintly reviewers scrubbing it of all evil first? Well, it shouldn’t, because there is this thing called the World Wide Web which already works that way, and it has served millions and millions of people quite well for a long time now."
Hewitt addresses Apple’s claim that the submission/review process is a necessary step in quality assurance – that is, testing apps for bugs and other nasty software maladies that, if left unchanged, might ruin the user's iPhone experience;
"Any bug that Apple finds after their two week delay would have been found by users on day one, and fixed on day two. I’d rather have a bug in the wild for one day than have an app in the review queue for two weeks.
…let’s face it, the real things they are looking for are not bugs, but violations of the terms of service. This is all about lawyers, not quality, and it shows that the model of Apple’s justice system is guilty until proven innocent. They don’t trust us, and I resent that, because the vast majority of us are trustworthy."
This is a powerful indictment of Apple's submission and review policies, coming from the developer of the platform's biggest social networking application. It's succinct, clear, intelligently composed and cohesive. Hewitt manages to do in just a few hundred words what some very high-profile tech pundits have labored to express using many hundreds more. And I hope the press takes notice, because this is as good as it gets.
Affects All Fish, Big and Small
So far, it seems, developers have not had a particularly strong voice in this chorus. When I interviewed Hwee-Boon Yar for my article on SimplyTweet, he expressed dissatisfaction with Apple, referring to the approval process as 'broken', adding;
"Approvals are unpredictable and payment is hard to track… I have waited weeks, sometimes only to have an update rejected; I worked out a fix, then had it rejected again. Each re-submission puts you at the back of the queue again."
Hwee-Boon is just one of thousands of talented, ambitious developers who have endured endless frustration with the current procedures. But while SimplyTweet is enjoying its place amongst the better-known Twitter apps, it's no Facebook. Having Joe Hewitt's opinions aired publicly might work wonders for communicating a more personal, human and high-profile side to the story.
Apple's broken approval process doesn't exist in a vacuum where it affects only applications from the big players like Google and Facebook, but it doesn't hurt to have the developers behind those big apps add their voices to the rising chorus of disappointment. Is Apple listening? I'm sure the FCC is…
Hurry! GigaOM's Mobilize conference is on Sept 10th in SF. See our final speaker lineup and topics. Mobile web is booming. Join us!
Переслать - Learn Aperture Without One to One
When Apple changed its One to One policy, I had no idea it would eventually affect me personally. As a consumer who recently upgraded to a high-end digital camera, I am also looking to upgrade my digital photo editing and organizing software.Naturally, as a contributor to this blog, my first thought was to upgrade from iPhoto to Aperture. The problem is, where do I turn to learn how to use all of Aperture’s features? The One to One program would be perfect for me, but that’s no longer an option unless I purchase a new computer from Apple.
For those of you who may have forgotten, the old One to One program cost $99 and included weekly one hour (read: one academic hour, which actually means 50 minutes) sessions for an entire year. Customers could learn about a wide variety of topics, from how to use a Mac, to uploading photos to MobileMe, to editing images in Aperture.
In order to provide an alternative for those like me who’ve been hung out to dry, I’ve done my best gathering resources for people who like a little guidance when learning new software. Fortunately, Aperture is designed so that newcomers can easily figure out how to import photos from a memory card and organize them into projects, but anything more advanced may require additional patience and resources.
- Apple tutorials podcast
- Quick Tips with Richard Harrington podcast
- Apple’s Aperture forum
- Apple’s Exploring Aperture book
- Amazon’s Aperture 4+ star books
- Retail workshops – Don’t expect much unless you live close to a major store. Those in Northern California have two options: San Francisco and Corte Madera.
Let us know about any other good resources you’ve come across for learning Aperture.
Mobile Startups, Meet The VCs @ Mobilize 09 Join 500 others at GigaOM's Mobilize 2009, led by Om Malik. Register now!Переслать - Is an Apple HDTV a Realistic Possibility?
Lately, there have been some murmurs that Apple is prepping an HDTV of its very own. Such a device would seem to be the logical next step for the evolution of Apple TV, the progress of which seems to have become somewhat stagnant of late.Like our own Liam Cassidy, Michael Wolf over at GigaOM Pro isn’t convinced (subscription required), for a few very good reasons. For one, he cites the high price tag and lack of subsidization, by comparing it to AT&T’s iPhone arrangement:
TVs would not have any such subsidization, nor would they have the fairly attainable prices of the iPhone (any Apple television would likely carry a price tag of $2,000 or more), putting it out of reach for many households.
Of course, that could be offset by a deal with a cable/satellite provider, but I think Apple’s FCC headaches over their relationship with AT&T will have them squeamish about such partnerships for a while to come.
What do you think? Will there be an Apple HDTV? What price point and features would make such a device attractive to you?
Переслать - Jobs Focused on the Tablet, Despite 'Distractions' at Apple HQ
In an article published today on the Wall Street Journal Online, Yukari Iwatani Kane reports that Apple CEO Steve Jobs is devoting almost all his time to the development of the much-rumored tablet device."Since his return in late June, the 54-year-old has been pouring almost all of his attention into a new touch-screen gadget that Apple is developing, said people familiar with the situation."
Kane adds that in an email (presumably to the WSJ, but the reporter doesn't make it clear) Jobs says that "much of your information is incorrect" but didn't explain which information was correct. Predictably enough, an Apple spokesperson “declined to comment.”
If there's any truth to the rumors of a late 2009 release, it would make perfect sense that Jobs is obsessing over tiny details, such as how curvy the back of the tablet is or whether the glass touchscreen has windscreen wipers, etc.
What's really telling about this is how easy it is to write an article that tells us nothing, yet feeds the rumor mill while further whetting our appetites for an as-yet-mythical device. And all this, despite being told by Jobs that the information is incorrect. It's astonishing, really.
Frankly, there are other important matters requiring Steve's close attention right now — matters that should easily consume his three days a week at the office.
First and foremost, there's an impending formal investigation by the FCC to contend with. That's serious business, and can see Apple in a lot of hot water. For a company that is so committed to its culture of secrecy, an investigation will expose much of Apple's inner workings to the world. Oh, and not to mention all the legal wrangling that will ensue — and all those predictably dramatic commentaries from Arrington and Calacanis to stoke the fire. In short, it's a very big deal. Everything else should take a backseat.
There's also that rumored special event next month that might just see The Beatles getting into iTunes (finally!). Given the decades of law suits and expensive settlements between Apple Inc. and Apple Corps Ltd., this development, if true, would be a very big deal not only for fans of the lads from Liverpool, but also for the two companies. Getting The Beatles' music into iTunes could be the start of a very valuable content publishing/distribution partnership. If it's true.
Failing the above, there's always that beleaguered team of 40 staff whose only purpose in life is to review and reject iPhone apps. Given they have only a few scant minutes to review each app (a little over six, according to Mike Ash's calculations) they surely could use a hand. Phil Schiller would probably do it but he's too busy writing to developers.
But yeah, it's a crazy world. Maybe Steve's ignoring everything else and spending his days locked in a room with Johnny Ive, debating whether the logo on the back of the tablet should be muted gray or metallic silver. Time will tell.
Join our first live online event, "Analyzing Google's Mobile Strategy: A GigaOM Pro Research Roundtable" on Thursday, Aug. 27, at 10 a.m. (PST). Sign up for our free webinar.Переслать - Dissecting the Apple, AT&T, and Google FCC Disclosures
Friday the 21st was the day Apple, Google, and AT&T had to hand in their long form essay responses to a series of questions from the FCC. Surprisingly, Apple published its entire response here, and Engadget has both AT&T’s and Google’s.I found the answers to the questions surprising on several levels. Let’s be honest here, who among us expected that Apple would be the one to publish its response in its entirety, while Google would be the party to claim confidentiality on why the app was rejected?
Was it, or Was it Not Rejected?
According to Apple, the app wasn’t rejected; it simply wasn’t approved. Which sounds very similar to a line Bill Clinton once delivered. Apple seems very sincere about their reasons for rejecting not approving Google Voice. After all, if an application, upon install, instantly reroutes all incoming calls, SMS messages, etc., and sends all your contacts to Google, it does sound a tad nefarious. Evil, even. Like the app should have fricken’ laser beams attached to its head.
Now, I could make a strong argument that I know more about rocket science (rockets go boom, right?) than I do about iPhone development. However, I do recall there being mention of certain APIs that were sacrosanct. Call me naive, but I don’t think Apple would publish an API that would allow Google Voice to behave it supposedly did. Google response, however, makes it seem like the worst Google Voice does is read your iPhone’s contact list from within its own app. Either way, it goes beyond Apple’s official APIs.
User Confusion
Having never used Google Voice, I have no first-hand experience with how it actually works. As near as I can tell, you give Google Voice a list of phone numbers it should call when someone calls your Google Voice number. If you don’t pick up, I’m assuming Google Voice’s back-end terminates the call and sends the caller to its voicemail network. You’d then show a missed call in the iPhone’s phone app and likely get a notification (push or otherwise) to the Google Voice app about the waiting voicemail.
Based on this assumption, do I think the Google Voice app introduces “user confusion?” No, I don’t. Now, I’ve worked in IT support for 15 years, and have run into my share of users who are confused by simple things about computers.
That said, if you go to Google’s site, sign up for their voice service, tell said service to call your iPhone, download an iPhone app to better manage that experience, and then tell me that you’re confused about why your GV voice mails aren’t handled by Visual Voicemail, I’m going to bean you in the head with a shovel. Repeatedly.
User confusion doesn’t fly for other Google Voice apps, either. None were nearly as invasive as Apple claims Google’s to be.
AT&T’s Role
AT&T has claimed they had no role in the Google Voice non-approval, and that the only apps it requests not appear in the App Store are ones that cause network congestion. Given Apple has also admitted this is the case, I believe AT&T had no role in this.
Seriously, Google?
I’m flabbergasted that the only company to claim confidentiality on why the app was refused was Google. As the aggrieved party, I expected Google to take a gigantic broadside shot at Apple. Google has also requested notification if someone seeks the redacted information under the Freedom of Information Act so “Google may have an opportunity to oppose grant of the disclosure request.”
Good gravy, when Apple is more outgoing with information than the party that had an app refused, I really start to wonder what was in there! I’m thinking its possible Google just wants to downplay their own mistakes at this point.
Tin Hat Theories and Occam’s Razor
When this whole issue blew up, the Internet was rife with theories pulled out of people’s posteriors. AT&T killed the app because it competes with the SMS cash cow that lets the carrier overcharge for simple services. Apple was fearful of Chrome OS and wanted to kneecap Google.
I don’t buy any of that. Occam’s Razor suggests that the simple answer is usually the correct one. In this case, Apple saw something about the app they were nervous or unsure about and didn’t approve it. Apple’s history with rejections seem to show that they err on the side of caution. I’m not being an Apple apologist here. The Google Voice rejection still doesn’t sit well with me. I thought Apple was wrong in the past, and I think it may be wrong here. As reported by developers, the App Store process needs to be improved, and it’s taking too long to get it fixed.
Join our first live online event, "Analyzing Google's Mobile Strategy: A GigaOM Pro Research Roundtable" on Thursday, Aug. 27, at 10 a.m. (PST). Sign up for our free webinar.Переслать - Apple's New Ads: Fantastic in Lots of Little Ways
Over on Apple's web site are the latest ads in its "Get a Mac" campaign. The new commercials, titled "Top of the Line" and "Surprise," continue the tried and trusted "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" theme featuring John Hodgman and Justin Long.
"Surprise" sees Mac telling a potential customer on the lookout to buy a new computer that PCs are great. The customer knows a little bit about the differences between Macs and PCs and, confused by Mac's suggestion, adds:
"But I want one that just works without thousands of viruses and a ton of headaches."
"That's a PC" Mac asserts.
"Really? I thought Macs were much more stable and secure than PCs."
"They're not!" cries Mac, "You can't believe everything you hear!"Curious? Head on over and see what's going on. It's not a bad contribution to the series, but not a favorite of mine. This one feels sorta like they're just going through the motions. I mean, how many more ways can they make the same point, using the same setup?
Lots of Little Fantastic
"Top of the Line" is fantastic in lots of little ways, and in one big way. The big way, of course, is the appearance of Patrick Warburton (Seinfeld’s David Puddy, and voice of Joe Swanson in Family Guy). He plays "Top of the Line" PC, a super-slick charmer.
Watch it a few times, and pay attention to the subtle and fantastic reactions from PC and Mac. PC in particular is brilliant, coming-across as a love-struck teenaged schoolgirl.
Oh, and pay particular attention to Warburton at around eight seconds in. Just try to watch that fake, barely modest expression and not laugh.
Переслать - Could a Dockable iPhone Be a Better Netbook?
PowerBook Duo: A hint of things to come?
PC Mag’s Sascha Segan posed an intriguing question the other day: “If you put a smartphone in a dock, it could replace a netbook. So why hasn’t anyone succeeded at doing that?”
Good question.
Now that I’ve been thinking about it, the idea of a dock into which you could pop an iPhone or an iPod touch, thereby quickly connecting it to a decent-sized external display, keyboard and mouse, some USB ports, Ethernet, and maybe an SD Card slot, you would have, if not best of both worlds, at least an attractive hybrid.
A dockable smartphone/Internet computer would no doubt cost more than a PC netbook, but it could also be much more versatile, and arguably a better overall value.
Indeed, external input device support over Bluetooth alone would make handhelds much more appealing to me. As Segan observes, with “65,000 apps for the iPhone alone, it’s hard to believe that there aren’t thousands of people who would want to use those apps with a nice big keyboard and screen.”
Of course, to make a docked iPhone or iPod touch truly competitive with the netbook segment, it would require driver tweaking and some re-engineering to support the necessary hardware inputs and outputs. There’s also the issue of what Segan refers to as “the OS problem,” specifically: The iPhone OS as presently configured is not really up to the job of supporting the kind of robust productivity apps that can run on a netbook under Linux, Windows, or OS X.
I’ve long been a fan and admirer of the Apple PowerBook Duo concept from the early to mid ’90s. It combined a subcompact laptop module that could be used as a freestanding notebook, and a Duo Dock with a full-size CRT monitor, a full set contemporary of I/O ports, and internal expansion slots for desktop power with few compromises.
Toward the end of the ’90s, laptop computers became powerful, versatile, and gained improved connectivity and display options. Many of the the Duo’s advantages were negated, but it seems to me quite logical that the PowerBook Duo concept could be successfully updated, using a handheld instead as its “core module.”
Indeed, it’s so logical that it seems a wonder no one has yet acted on the idea. Segan thinks the reason is that Apple and the wireless carriers don’t want it to happen. Presently, folks who have both a smartphone and a netbook need two wireless service subscriptions, whereas our proposed dockable handheld hybrid device would theoretically only require one. As for keyboard-supporting iPhones, he thinks that won’t happen because Apple doesn’t want to erode MacBook sales.
All that sounds a bit conspiratorial, but also lamentably plausible. Even so, look at the issue from the angle of a similar new product category. While Microsoft has a complicated relationship with the netbook phenomenon, and Apple is downright contemptuous, consumers voted with their wallets and made the netbook the hottest-selling category in computers. Now that the dam has burst as it were, Microsoft is playing ball with the netbook-optimized edition of Windows 7.
I think platform convergence and rationalization between the smartphone and netbook spaces could likewise catch the consumer imagination and take on a life of its own. It seems just too good an idea to be able to keep suppressed indefinitely.
Mobile Startups, Meet The VCs @ Mobilize 09 Join 500 others at GigaOM's Mobilize 2009, led by Om Malik. Register now!Переслать
| rss2email.ru | отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=6893&u=24004&r=311667163 управлять всей подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp |
