Apple’s Magical, Common Sense Formula

There is a trend in companies recently. Many are purchasing design firms to make their things look better. Before Apple became popular, companies didn’t really care about the look of their stuff that much. Now, they do. And yet, they are all approaching it wrong now. Everyone has misread Apple’s formula. Many think that Apple’s products sold because they looked great. This is wrong. You cannot just design yourself to success. Look at all those iOS mockups. Some of them look nice, but are completely impractical, confusing, and unusable. Consumers don’t just purchase things that look nice–see Windows 8 as an example. Just hiring a designer to make something look nice is putting a veneer over your product that doesn’t actually make it better. While this easily fools the tech press, it doesn’t trick consumers. To make something that people will love, you have to build something that you yourself would love to make and use. You have to create something that is simple, elegant, beautiful, and friendly. You have to be willing to change precedent. You have to take risks. You cannot just take one of those things listed above–that won’t bring success. You need to have all those things. That’s Apple’s formula. It really isn’t a secret but many miss it. It isn’t magic. It’s common sense.

Many think that Google is finally doing the same thing. I completely disagree. I feel like Google is not creating products for their users. I think Google is creating products that take advantage of their users. Google finally hired some designers. This has caused a new narrative to spread across the tech industry. The narrative is that Google is getting better than Apple at design. This is wrong again. Many confuse design with just graphic design. Google can make products look nice (though they frequently borrow design elements) but that doesn’t mean they are better at design. As I said above, design is more than just looks. And Google hasn’t gotten to the point where they are even close to Apple.

For example, Google just announced some major updates to its Maps and Google+ sites. Do they look nicer? Yes. Does that make them easier and simpler to use? No. The new Google Maps are more confusing to use. The button for directions is hidden and only shows up once you start searching. While this is not a problem for most people in the technology world, this will confuse the heck out of most consumers. Now, as the new Google Maps are still in beta, this may change in the future, but Google seems pretty set on this design. The new Google+ is ridiculous. They added multiple columns of posts, auto hash-tagging, and a hidden menu, all of which make the design harder to use. If you look at Apple designs, they never hide important buttons. Navigation is important and hiding it, which may make it look nicer, is a step in the wrong direction.

So please companies, stop hiring design firms as your sole way to improve your product. You need a leader, a vision, A-players, and the drive and passion to create something that is great and will change the world. You need to iterate until you get it right. Design does not equal success. You need to consider all aspects of usability. Never sacrifice simplicity for a design that just ‘looks’ simpler. So stop, big companies. Thanks. And use some common sense. You sorely lack it.

Rdio Review

A few weeks ago, I decided to try Rdio. I had kept hearing from friends and on Twitter about how streaming music was the next big thing (ugh) in music. I researched my options and decided that Rdio was the best one out there. It had the best design and had great reviews from friends. I downloaded the Rdio app and signed up (a relatively straightforward process). I then moved the iOS Music app off my dock and replaced it with Rdio. I did the same thing with iTunes on my Mac. For the next two weeks, I used only Rdio. The result? I think that Rdio is a nice service. It has a great design, it is fast, and it has some features that iTunes doesn’t have–some features I want iTunes to have. However, I switched back to iTunes after those two weeks were up. Why? Fundamental flaws with the service. What does that mean? Read on.

I signed into the app and immediately did what I figure most people would try to do–discover music. Unfortunately, that’s rather impossible with Rdio. They have a section called Top Charts which has the most popular songs currently being played on Rdio. They also have Heavy Rotation which apparently uses the music that you have listened to and the people you follow to determine what music you may like. This page never really worked well. The Top Charts and Heavy Rotation pages always displayed identical music for me. While I found one or two songs I liked, most of the music was garbage¹. Those pages were pretty much useless to me. The last page I found was called New Releases. Rdio describes it like so:

Browse hundreds of new albums, added every week.

The description describes my exact problem with that section. I don’t want to browse through hundreds of new albums, listening to each one, trying to find one I like. That is a huge time suck. I want to be able to sort by genre, see recommendations from the curators, new releases, and what is popular in that category. I don’t want to see what is popular for the whole service, most of it is pop junk. I want a layout that makes it easy to discover new artists, or rediscover old ones. Rdio’s idea of discovery is one long list of album art that never ends. That isn’t curation. That isn’t helpful. That is laziness on Rdio’s part. Why can’t I sort by music genre?

Since I couldn’t find new artists to listen to, I searched for one I already knew, Regina Spektor². I encountered another problem here as well. Rdio search is terrible. When I searched for her, I was given a list of her albums with some songs mixed in. You can sort it by just songs or albums, but I think that, at the very least, her albums should be in one group, and her songs in the other, even if they are all on the same page. For example, I had to scroll down the page to get to her most recent album. What the what? Rdio has a bunch of her albums though, which made me very happy. At this point, I was browsing Rdio on my Mac, so I synced all the songs to my iPod with a click, which is a neat feature. Unfortunately, since Rdio isn’t a system app, the songs are only synced when the app is opened. I can’t hold this against Rdio though, they have no control over that. However, the offline mode is buggy in the app. It doesn’t always automatically switch between offline and online mode well and some of the songs in offline mode wouldn’t play (this was a bug though that was fixed in a subsequent update). One thing I found strange about the album page is that it has some statistics on how many people have played it and who played it recently. It looks like this:

It isn’t a huge complaint, but I don’t really see the point of it there. Perhaps someone uses it somewhere, but I don’t really see how that is beneficial to many.

Scrolling to the bottom of the page, I found something stranger. Rdio has a Critic’s Review in the comments section of each album. I find this weird for two reasons. The first thing that is weird is that there is no link to the review. It just is there, with the reviewer’s name, but no link, publish date, or any other information that would help you find more about that review. The second problem I have with it is its existence. Why is it even there? Frankly, I would see it make just a little more sense in iTunes, when you are buying the album. With Rdio, you get full music previews. You can listen to every song as many times as you want and decide for yourself. To me, it just seems like a waste of space. Additionally, I find the fact that comments show up in albums in your collection a little weird, but I can see the point in that. This leads to another major issue I have with Rdio and streaming music services in general.

I like to own my music. I like to know that whatever happens, I will have that music. If I own a CD and the CD shop downtown closes (if it is still open at this point in time), I will still own that song. If Apple decided that iTunes was a big mistake and a stupid idea and decided to shutter it tomorrow, I would still own all the music I purchased. I would still be able to access all my playlists. Everything would go on as normal, except purchasing music would be much less convenient. If Rdio was acquired and shut down, all my music would go away. My entire music collection, along with all my playlists, would disappear. There would be nothing I could do about it. Internet services close all the time–how do you know that won’t happen to your favorite music streaming service next? Having unlimited music for less than $10 a month is nice until it goes away. Using an unlimited music subscription service is not forward-looking thinking. Thirty years from now, there is no guarantee that you will be able to still listen to that music there. That is my biggest problem with Rdio and a fundamental flaw with the entire concept.

What about something like Pandora ³? I find Pandora a whole lot more compelling because the point of it is music discovery. It is like iTunes Genius with sound⁴. You can’t choose the songs you listen to with Pandora, you just pick a general mood and it finds other songs you may like. I use Pandora to find new music. If I like it enough, I then purchase it on iTunes. If Pandora shut down, would it be annoying? Yes. Would it be the end of the world? No. I wouldn’t have lost my entire music collection. I just would have lost a great way to find music. Rdio actually offers a Pandora-esque radio service. However, I didn’t find it to work quite as well as Pandora, which didn’t really make it useful for me.

Despite my problems with the actual idea of Rdio, I did find some features I wish iTunes had. Rdio lets you share albums and songs to friends through email and Twitter⁵. You can even embed albums into webpages (which I guess is useful if you blog about music). iTunes lets you do the same (except for the embedding of albums) but it isn’t integrated in very well. To this day, I don’t know why iTunes on the Mac doesn’t use the built in Mountain Lion sharing options (the Mac App Store does). You also can’t share individual songs on iOS. You can on Rdio, which is great.

Another great feature of Rdio is the remote. Basically, when you are playing music on your Mac from Rdio, you can pick up your iPhone, and control the music from there. You can even start playing the music on your iPhone right from where you were on your Mac⁶. I found this super useful⁷ and wish I could do this with iTunes (built in). Since my whole music library is synced on my iOS music device, it would be really helpful to have that feature. It isn’t necessary, but it would be a fantastic feature to have.

Unfortunately for Rdio, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Discovery is terrible. In my two weeks of using it every day, I never once found new artists that I liked. I find new artists all the time in iTunes because I can easily sort by genre and Apple curates the best in that category. I usually find plenty of music I like. Genius also really helps with finding new music. If Rdio wants people to continue to use their service and find more music, I suggest they really work on the discovery process. A grid of the most popular albums does not cut it. I also have major issues with the very idea of streaming music services. Rdio may be fine for people who don’t care about their music collections, but it isn’t for me. And discovery still is terrible so I am not sure why you would want to use it ever. Rdio seems attractive from the outside. Practically free music! Who doesn’t want that? However, once you bite into the delicious looking exterior of the apple, you get to the rotten core infested with worms. Rdio has flaws that can’t be fixed unless they completely pivot and change the service. And I don’t think they plan to do that. Some people use Rdio so if they have a hard drive failure, they won’t lose all their music. I don’t worry about that as I use iTunes Match and iTunes in the Cloud. It’s cheaper than Rdio. Others use Rdio side by side with iTunes, listening to full album previews on Rdio before purchasing it on iTunes. I have no need for that though. iTunes lets you preview a whole album at once and gives you 90 second previews for each song. I don’t need much more then that to figure out whether I like a song or not. The few cases where I can’t decide? I use YouTube. I think in the past year, I have only used YouTube for that purpose three times. I believe the people who are using it don’t really know what they want out of a music service but are using it because nothing truly offers what they want. However, I know what I want, so Rdio has no future with me.

1. Like this wonderful album by Nicki Minaj.
   
2. I absolutely love her music and I suggest you listen to some of it.
   
3. Apple is currently rumored to be working on a competitor to Pandora.
   
4. In fact, I wouldn’t be totally surprised if Apple decided to make its radio service part of iTunes Genius.
   
5. Also Facebook, but I don’t care about Facebook at all.
   
6. You can already sort of achieve this for iTunes and the iOS music app with Seamless, but it is sort of clunky.
   
7. When it worked, that is. I found the remote to have some sporadic problems. For example, it wouldn’t always pick up in the right place when switching from one device to another, and it sometimes completely restarted the song.
   

What Is Up With The Verge?

I personally have never been a huge fan of The Verge. I have always found that they are not opinionated enough. In reviews, they seem to list positive things about a phone, but then end it with a cop-out. I respect some of the writers there. I enjoy some of their pieces. I just have always taken issue with a lot of their work.

I also have taken issue with them having a huge bias against Apple. This isn’t something that has happened once. It happens multiple times. They always seem to be kinder to the competition. Here’s an example (thanks Dan):

Back in September, Samsung released an ad about the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III titled “It doesn’t take a genius.” It was a pretty poor ad, seeing how they listed very few iPhone software features, and listed a bunch of Galaxy S III features. The Verge kind of dismissed the whole thing as marketing:

The cherry atop this cake of provocation is the slogan “it doesn’t take a genius,” which simultaneously pokes fun at Apple’s Genius store employees and implies that choosing the Galaxy S III over the iPhone 5 is a no-brainer. Given the speed with which Apple sold out of its first batch of iPhone 5s, there are evidently quite a few people out there who’d disagree with Samsung’s premise, but more importantly, isn’t there room for both the GS III and the iPhone 5 in the modern smartphone market? Can’t we all just get along?

I was kind of annoyed at the time for The Verge not really calling out Samsung on the ad. The same thing happened four days later, when Samsung released an anti-iPhone 5 TV ad. The Verge summarizes the ad, and then adds this:

Between this commercial and Samsung’s other inflammatory advertisements, the company’s posturing towards Apple goes beyond tongue-in-cheek prodding. We’re not sure mocking potential customers is the best way to earn them, but Samsung must think it’s doing something right if its sales performance is any indication. Maybe someday those sales figures will convince the company to step off the warpath of insults.

This really pissed me off at the time. They completely dismissed it again. Instead of calling Samsung out, they briefly mentioned the fact that they were mocking customers, and basically said, “maybe it will end one day.” Ugh. All of this would be sort of acceptable if The Verge had not written this long piece about Apple’s new “Why iPhone” page they posted today. The title of the article is this:

Apple stays on the defensive with new iPhone promotional campaign

Is Apple being defensive? It could go both ways. But they never said that Samsung was being defensive in their previous ads. Samsung was most definitely being defensive. Why didn’t The Verge call out Samsung then?

It touts a number of competitive product features, but with no new iPhone hardware immediately on the horizon it appears the company is reacting to the market rather than leading it.

The iPhone 5 is the best rated phone on The Verge. Is that not leading? The Verge then starts to fact check Apple’s page (they did not do this in any way with Samsung’s previous ads).

The 326 ppi pixel density of the iPhone 5 has been lapped by Android devices quite a few times lately — most recently by the 441 ppi display of the Galaxy S4 itself.

Really? Lapped? Once you get to a certain point, more pixels do nothing. It would be like adding one dollar bills to a stack of one billion dollar bills. It doesn’t make a huge difference. The Verge at least mentions that pixel density isn’t the only measure of display quality, but still. They never even bothered to fact check Samsung ads. Why not?

…given the influx of 1080p smartphone displays Apple’s claim that “it remains a feature found only on iPhone and other Apple products” seems more technicality than triumph.

Yes, just like how you pointed out that Shake to Update and S Voice are just a technicality? Oh wait.

The iPhone 5′s camera has been a high-water mark in the smartphone market, but its low-light performance has also faced some pressure from devices like the Lumia 920 and the new HTC One.

Why are you mentioning that? In your own review, you give the HTC One a 6 for camera. The Lumia 920 (the phone Nokia faked pictures for) received an 8. The same as the iPhone 5. That isn’t competition. That is one failure of a camera, and one similar one. You also say this of the Nokia Lumia 920′s camera:

To most eyes, the images look a little washed out and don’t “pop,” with not enough warm tones. A studied pro might say that they’re more accurate and true to life, but the vast majority of smartphone users don’t want to think about the nuances of optical imaging stabilization, they just want to take photos.

That doesn’t sound too good, does it?

The page even lists the top three cameras on Flickr — the iPhone 4S, 4, and 5 — as inferred proof of the iPhone’s superiority.

Inferred proof? You, The Verge (did you forget what you wrote?), said that the iPhone 5 camera is superior. Why are you disputing it now?

The page takes its biggest shots, however, at Android itself. Echoing some of Schiller’s comments, Apple points out that App Store apps are “all reviewed by Apple to guard against malware” (though as we continue to see, this doesn’t keep the occasional unauthorized app from making its way to Apple’s servers).

This makes me sick. They couldn’t resist mentioning that Apple has gotten one or two bad (malware) apps in the store. This is nothing compared to Android. Why don’t they point out how Android has hundreds of bad apps? Also, why didn’t they point out that while Google doesn’t really remove malware apps, they have no qualms against removing ad blocking apps? Did The Verge ever cover Google doing that? If so, I can’t find it. If they didn’t, as I think they did, that is pretty odd, don’t you think?

Taken together with the recent interviews, it’s clear that Apple’s iPhone marketing philosophy is shifting. While it hasn’t shied away from taking shots at competitors in keynotes, its advertising has traditionally focused on positively promoting the strengths of its own products — the “product as hero” philosophy Schiller has espoused in the past. However, the last week has seen the company go after its competitors more openly than ever, and while the email campaign and new page ostensibly tout the iPhone’s strengths, their timing and focus clearly mark them as defensive measures.

Yes. Apple has never, NEVER gone after the competition defensively or offensively. This is not a big change for Apple. This is business as usual. This is competing. If Apple wasn’t competing, I would be worried.

Cupertino isn’t giving up consumer mindshare without a fight.

Have they already given up mindshare? I don’t really think so. Apple isn’t in a dire situation. They have tons of money. But they did have a close brush with death in the 90s. They realize that they keep having to compete or they will decline. They are doing what they always do. Apple isn’t dying. They made a couple of mistakes last year. So what? Every company does. No company is perfect. A company would have to be magical to be perfect. Apple isn’t magical, they just make magical products.

The Verge sucks. This is not the first time they have done something like this. This is constant. Why does The Verge do this? They are losing any integrity they had to begin with. I don’t trust them anymore. I don’t think anyone should.

Update:
@zcichy has some good thoughts here and here about this.

Update 2:

I wanted to clarify what I am criticizing The Verge about.

I don’t think that The Verge is always biased against Apple. I enjoy The Verge reviews. I feel they usually give scores to the best products. My point was more the news side of the operation. This is kind of a pattern. Not just with advertising too. The Verge was the only news organization that got exclusive access to the Glass labs. They didn’t post about Google removing ad-blocking apps from the Play store—a major policy shift for Google. They didn’t cover the news that arose that Google was asking reporters to be nicer to them. The Verge posted an article about how Apple has a porn problem, even though the problem is much more rampant on other platforms (thanks Dan, again). The Verge received exclusive access to the Android labs with the Nexus 4 and Nexus 10. They posted an article defending the Nexus 4 having no LTE.

I am not accusing The Verge of anything yet. There isn’t enough proof, even with that above. It could just be mistakes or accidents. I am suspicious of the pattern. Patterns can sometimes mean nothing. But I think it is a string to keep tugging to see where it leads. No harm in making sure news organizations who say they are unbiased actually are.

What is Dropbox?

I know many of you are avid users of Dropbox. Most people seem to love the features it offers. I have personally always stayed away from it. I have 25 GB of free space (friend referrals!) but I haven’t ever really used it. Up until today, the only reason I had Dropbox installed on my Mac was so 1Password could sync. Why didn’t I really like Dropbox before? I have three reasons:

 

• Laziness. I never bothered to properly set it up. It didn’t seem to interest me, and my 256 GB of space of my Mac seemed plentiful.
• I didn’t agree with the product vision. I didn’t (and still don’t) think that an online file system in the cloud is the way of the future. It feels like a relic of the past that people are afraid to get rid of. I think iCloud’s idea of having everything everywhere without thinking is the right way to go.
• I sort of figured that Dropbox would be acquired and the service would go away.

 

The third reason looks like it probably won’t happen. Dropbox rejected an offer from Apple (and who knows how many other companies) and just bought Mailbox today. Dropbox could still be acquired, but it seems unlikely.

Laziness

I dealt with the laziness today. I added some important folders to my Dropbox account. I do feel much safer now that some of my important projects are in the cloud. Another backup. However, I don’t see that overtaking iCloud for apps that support it.

I also turned on Dropbox in many apps that support it to test Pythonista. What did I find? Most of the uses of Dropbox I saw were very similar to the iCloud implementations. It didn’t seem to add much benefit, except that you can access it online (you can also access your iCloud app files online here; you can also download them). Most seem to use Dropbox as a syncing hack. This confuses me. What is Dropbox? Why would they do this instead of iCloud?

Why not use iCloud?

Since iCloud is made for syncing (and you can sync the data without opening the app), you would think that developers would use it instead of Dropbox. Most do. But some developers have had to switch to Dropbox or other cloud solutions because iCloud just wasn’t working for them. This could end up being a problem for Apple. Apple recieved (sometimes rightly so) a lot of flack about its online services. With iCloud, it harms developers as well. The documentation isn’t as clear as it should be, leading to confusion and incorrect implementations. I personally think Apple should do three things with iCloud (nothing new):

 

• Beef up on servers, make it more reliable.
• Improve developer documentation.
• Expand the online application (iCloud.com).

 

There are many other things Apple can fix, but those are my main three. I don’t think Apple is blind about this. I think they are working on this. Perhaps iCloud 2.0?

Back to Dropbox

I am going to keep playing around with Dropbox. It seems like a very solid and reliable service. There are some neat things you can do with it (they really should have a developer app showcase, showing the neatest things you can do with Dropbox in apps) and the potential is huge. And with the Mailbox acquisition, it adds a whole new world of possibilities. I look forward to the future enhancements to Dropbox. But I am more excited about improvements to iCloud, which, I feel, is the future of cloud storage–once it gets solid enough.

Coming Soon: Review of Rdio

I signed up for a free trial of Rdio. I am using it and will write about my experiences when the trial is over (3-25-13, or if I decide I truly hate the service before that). Will I switch away from iTunes? Will I throw Rdio on the ground? Will I find a happy medium using both services? All I will say is that there are good things and bad things to the service. Stay tuned.

Samsung Introduces the Samsung Galaxy Crap (Or Why I Don’t Really Care At All and You Shouldn’t Either)

So you want my thoughts?

People have been asking me, what do I think of the newly announced (but not released, nor announced with pricing or a firm shipping date–really Samsung?) Samsung Galaxy S IV?

Seriously,

the keynote was a joke, they had actors come on stage and do random things. They announced all the features of the phone before actually showing it off. Whatever you think of Samsung, they definitely don’t copy Apple Keynotes. I think they copied Qualcomm.
As for the phone?

• It looks the same as the Galaxy S3. Does this mean we will get ‘Samsung is doomed’ articles? Haha no.
• Most features seem gimmicky. Eye pausing seems neat in practice, but I think I would find it annoying.
• S Health seems interesting, but I don’t think it truly brings anything new to the party, especially compared to some of the fitness apps on iOS.
• What I noticed right away is that Samsung added a ton of features that could replace third-party apps. Samsung is trying to do everything, which means an overall compromised user experience. You can do a few things well, or many things not really well. You can’t do both. Samsung is basically ‘sherlocking’ many developers and apps. Yet I see very few complaints about this. There are a lot of complaints when Apple does the same thing (albeit at a smaller scale). This actually speaks to another possible reason as to why apps on Android are generally bad. Developers have little incentive since Google and manufacturers like Samsung add every possible feature to their devices. Less apps to build, fewer high quality developers, fewer great apps in the Play store. While, you hear about it when Apple does it, the occurrences are a lot less frequent. I find this interesting and I don’t feel like this point has been raised up much in the past.
• It’s made of plastic. Ugh.

Samsung did what everyone expected. A crappy plastic phone loaded with specs and features that most won’t ever want or use. The only reason why they have been successful has been by marketing the iPhone as boring. I’m not sure they can do it this time around since they didn’t completely redesign the phone. Samsung painted the picture that no redesign = boring. Now they copied Apple with that practice, and they may pay the price for that. Only time will tell.

Update:
In other news, the WSJ continues on its Apple hate fest. They say that Apple’s “only hope” is to introduce a low cost iPhone. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Apple may do this. But it isn’t over for them if they don’t do so. I imagine every tech company in the world wants to be failing as badly as Apple is right now.

This Technology Journalist Has Lost His Way a Lot

The BBC aired a broadcast (AppPicker rewrote it, I am using what they wrote for the rest of this piece, though these are all his ideas) of this technology journalist, Rupert Goodwins, talking about Apple. And since no one wants to talk about how well Apple is doing, he decided to talk about how doomed Apple really is. Oh joy. Let’s dive into this seething cauldron of dumbness.

Apple shares are the lowest they’ve been in 12 months, and we’ve seen them lose the equivalent in value to the whole of Microsoft.

Ooh! Microsoft! This would mean a lot if it were the 90s. Let’s ignore the Microsoft part–sure, Apple’s stock has been going way down, but it also higher than it was when Steve Jobs died. Another slight problem–stock owners are batshit crazy! The stock price has no meaning at all. Amazon is up when they lose money, Apple is down when they have a record quarter. Saying that the stock price shows Apple has lost their way immediately discredits you. Of course, with statements like this one and the ones below, it is obvious that Goodwins doesn’t want credibility. He just wants fame.

All the while Google has been on the up, perhaps suggesting a general shift towards Android and other Google products over Apple’s.

In stock, Google has been going up, but otherwise? Actually, he is right, Android has been going up–in terms of the amount of malware available on it.

Since Steve Jobs passed away, the company has been struggling with poor product launches, either through unpredictably high demand (this was the case with the iPhone 5) or poor features that didn’t live up to expectations such as Apple Maps.

Unless I was dreaming (in addition to the dream where this piece doesn’t exist), he just said that Apple is doomed because the iPhone 5 is selling so well. Also, every iPhone and iPad launch have had supply constraints because it sells well. Whatever, DOOM. He also brings up Apple Maps. Yes, they didn’t live up to expectations, but is that doom for Apple? Apple can’t make a map perfectly so DOOM? He also brings up one example of Apple’s impending doom from disappointing products. Steve Jobs had the iPod HiFi and Antennagate (just to name two). No one is perfect. And that doesn’t spell gloom. How come when another company messes up with stuff like this (Google and streetview?), there are no doom and gloom stories? If you really want to point out a flaw with Apple, point out their current services. They are improving, but they are not there yet.

All the while, the company has a significant amount of money in cash ($137bn), that isn’t really being used to improve their products. At the moment, Apple seems to have assumed they’ve got it perfect with the iPhone and iPad and so only minor revisions are necessary. However other smartphone manufacturers are moving quickly changing their designs quite radically (such as the Samsung Galaxy S range). They’re spending much less on R&D than other companies in the technology field – could this be where the company is going wrong? They got it right at the start with the iPhone, but they need to go back to the drawing board once in a while.

Apple must spend more money. Spending money equals innovation. Redesigning equals innovation. Spending lots on R&D equals innovation. I am so tired of these false beliefs. Apple didn’t really change the look of the iPod for years (heck, they still have the iPod Classic!). Yet, they still did the iPhone and iPad. Samsung literally tries every possible design there is just to see what sticks. Desperate writers make up a bunch of bullshit just to get attention. The cycle continues. It never ends. It makes me sick.

 

Thanks Kyle!

 

Google’s Chromebook Pixel Looks Cooler Than a Hernia

From Forbes ‘Contributor,’ Dave Thier (no link, guess why?):

Google’s Chromebook Pixel Looks Cooler Than an Apple Product

That is so true! Seeing how Apple has some of the best industrial design in the world, it is super surprising that Apple has never introduced a product that looks like the Chromebook Pixel and has a screen like the Pixel. Moving on:

Laptops could use a little sexy back.

A MacBook Air/MacBook Pro with Retina Display love child that runs only a browser is sexy?

For the past few years, tech companies have been focused on tablets and smartphones, and in the meantime, a simple clamshell laptop has been relegated to workhorse status. You use it to type blog posts on planes, not to glimpse a vision of the future. Apple’s Macbook is a curiosity in a company now defined by the iPad and iPhone.

So I guess Apple pushing other companies (including Google) to put Retina Displays in laptops and create super thin laptops equals a small focus for Apple. Sure, Apple’s primary center of attention has been the iPhone and iPad, but, until recently, Apple had separate people in charge of iOS and OS X software. Apple brought on the whole “Back to Mac” movement. They did really amazing things on iOS and have brought back many ideas and features to the Mac. The MacBook Air and MacBook Pro with Retina Display (and iMac) are a result of that. Since Apple makes so few products, they are able to really focus on the products they do make. The Mac has received a tremendous amount of attention in recent years. Also, I don’t know about you but I can easily write blog posts on an iPad. Heck, this entire paragraph is being written on an iPhone! Apple has been bringing the Mac line into their vision of the future. And companies have been scrambling to figure out how to copy it ever since. I don’t think that Apple’s MacBook Air or Pro (the MacBook was discontinued, Thier, by the way) is a curiosity. It makes perfects sense now that Apple has brought many iOS features back to the Mac (developers are doing the same as well).

But today Google unveiled the Chromebook Pixel, a premium, touch-screen laptop that’s betting we’re not in the post-PC era yet.

I disagree. Google’s Chromebook is an odd combination of a non post-PC and a post-PC device. It appears to be a tablet with a keyboard built in (Google offers a cellular version) and running a non-touch optimized OS. The author seems to be suggesting that the Chromebook Pixel beats the MacBook Pro just because of the touchscreen, but it seems to offer no benefit as it runs an OS made for a mouse.

Google’s previous Chromebooks were budget devices aimed at people looking for a second computer. The Pixel is different — it’s aimed squarely at the Macbook Air. It’s a premium product designed to be a status symbol akin to an Apple product. It has a high-resolution touchscreen with a total of 4.2 million pixels that Wired calls “gorgeous.” It’s priced at $1,300 for a standard, 32G version and $1,450 for a Verizon LTE-enabled version with 62G.

I am glad Wired calls the Pixel “gorgeous.” That is great for Google. But you know what? I always call the pumpkin I get around Halloween “gorgeous.” That means nothing, except for one thing–the man hasn’t used the Chromebook Pixel. So he is judging the Chromebook Pixel before he has seen it and anyone has reviewed it. That is almost as bad as Nokia reviewing their own phone (if not a bit worse–at least Nokia had used the device). For the sake of sanity, let’s pretend he had actually used the machine for the rest of the article.

The Pixel is different — it’s aimed squarely at the Macbook Air.

Is it? The MacBook Air is a device made for people who want the portability of the iPad with the power and functionality of a Mac. The Chromebook Pixel is a web browser with a high quality screen and a keyboard. It costs $1300. You want a computer that does a lot more and has a high quality screen? Get the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display. It costs only $200 more. Oh, and the MacBook Pro with Retina Display (or any Mac, for that matter) comes with a browser and the ability to boot into a browser only mode. And if you really love Chrome, you can install it.

It runs Chrome OS and it’s built for the cloud – hence the small hard-drives. That might make some users uncomfortable, but I think it’s a decent bet to bank on what is bound to be the near-future of personal computing in all its forms. In addition, the Chrome OS doesn’t have the sort of software long-established Windows and Mac operating systems boast – that’s a problem for professionals and personal users alike.

It runs a browser. Cool. The problem here, is that nothing is said as to why this makes it better. Google originally touted fast booting, but the MacBook Air (and the MacBook Pro with Retina Display with an SSD) boots really quickly. The author doesn’t explain why it’s a decent bet. It made more sense to me when the laptops were cheap. The point of the Chromebook was a cheap and easy way to get access to the Internet. Now I don’t know what the purpose is. I don’t think Google knows it either. The Chromebook Pixel comes with a terabyte of free Google Drive space–but it only lasts three years. Then it goes away. You really want temporary storage? Strangely, the author doesn’t mention that little factoid.

But it is cool. This machine has its own style. At least in a world where everything is a slight variation on the flattish silver box. It doesn’t look like an Apple product. It’s harder and more industrial. To me, this style embraces the idea of a laptop as a work machine. It certainly is arresting, in that same way brand-new Apple products sometimes are.

Perhaps the poor author is blind. That would explain the complete idiocy of this paragraph. The Chromebook Pixel looks just like a Macbook Pro. It is made of aluminum. It has a black, backlit keyboard. It has a glass, multi-touch trackpad. Sound familiar? This is not a unique device. This is an existing device. And it is called the MacBook Pro. I just cannot comprehend how this man thinks this doesn’t look like an Apple product. Besides the fact that it is thicker and heavier, it is a near replica. Also, he mentions that every laptop is now a “flattish silver box.” First of all, I wonder where computer manufacturers got the idea for that kind of design? Secondly, how is the Pixel not a ‘flattish silver box’? If anything, the Pixel is more boxlike compared to a MacBook Pro or Air.

I’m not sure this product will jump out of its box. There are too many unknowns, from the pure reliance on cloud and the lack of software to the new OS and the pricing that beats out even Apple. The notion of having 3 Microphones is…stupid.

The notion of writing an article about how much cooler the Chromebook Pixel compared to an Apple product is without actually using the product and without actually giving a reason why it is cooler except for a completely fake design reason is also…stupid. Ending your sentence with “…stupid” is also…stupid. He apparently thinks that having three microphones is worse than praising a laptop because it is “hard.” Oookay…

It’s still exciting.

It really isn’t.

This isn’t always a purely logical market — witness the power of “the Apple tax.”

Oh god. On the other hand, this is a purely logical article he wrote (subtract any logic, depth, or thought process). The Apple tax is a farce. Apple doesn’t force people to purchase accessories. They chose to do so. It is somehow Apple’s fault if someone buys a third party accessory? This is a fantastical article to use to wipe your bottom when you are done using the toilet (although, waisting ink to print this article might make it not worth it).

This feels like it could be anything-but-cautious beginning [sic] of serious Google computers.

Oh yes! They are off to a great, non-cautious start by totally not copying Apple’s industrial design!

Between the sci-fi future of Project Glass and this intriguing new Pixel, I find myself getting more and more excited about Google hardware.

While Google Glass looks cool, I question the usefulness of such a device (another post, another time, perhaps). I still don’t see how the Pixel is intriguing–in the way he is talking about. To me, the Pixel is intriguing because it appears that Google may have actually lost their minds. Again. Again. Again. And that just doesn’t excite me. I would rather have a MacBook Pro with Retina Display that can beautifully display all my content. Or, if I wanted a cheaper, touchscreen, Retina way to browse the web, the iPad with Retina Display is always a fantastic option. And if you really want it, the iPad can get Chrome.

Forbes Reeks of Stupidity When Bashing Apple

Apple iWatch Leaks Drips With Desperation

–Nigam Arora, A Forbes ‘Contributor’ (no link, because it’s Forbes).

That was the title of the wonderful article I read this morning in Prismatic. I had not expected to see such a stupid article so soon after the last. I was hoping for a bit of a break. Oh well. Let’s dig into this scrumptious platter of nothingness:

Recent rumors about iWatch were a departure from the past.  They did not appear as usual in Asia but almost simultaneously in the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.  The information on iWatch in the two venerable publications came just before Apple CEO Tim Cook was to speak at Goldman Sachs Technology conference.

Apple must be behind this! It is suspicious that the rumors happened to leak out at the same time. Let’s say that this part is true, that Apple is leaking some information to get people talking about it. This isn’t any different from when the iPhone and iPad were going to be launched. Remember all those leaks? What about the iPhone 5? Was Apple desperate at that time? Or were they just doing what every technology company does? Every tech company leaks stories to try to get press. Samsung, Google, Microsoft, HTC, and every other company in the world leaks information. The press is a huge tool that can be useful is wielded properly. Apple would be dumb not to take advantage to it. Still, basing a huge part of your article around an assumption isn’t really a good idea. Also, Apple hasn’t really ever cared about investors. The author seems to suggest this was all done for investors. I laugh.

The fact that more details than usual have appeared in American media indicates the likelihood that Apple is planting the story about iWatch.  The question is, “Why is Apple departing from its past practice?”

Departing from past practices? Apple never leaked information before? Well, if we assume that all articles in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are leaked by Apple, then Apple leaked this and this (two examples out of the hundreds that are there). These leaks are not unusual.

One theory is that Apple is acting out of desperation.  Tim Cook has been talking about innovation but not many seem to believe him.  At Goldman’s conference, Tim Cook said that innovation culture at Apple has never been stronger. Perhaps Apple leaked details of iWatch to put some meat on the statement by Cook.

Seeing how Apple supposedly constantly leaks information, this is again, wrong. Tim Cook can speak about innovation all he wants and most sane people will believe him. Apple has the track record to back it up. The insane technology bloggers are the only ones who won’t believe him (and unfortunately, they influence the viewpoints of the other insane people in the world). Also, watch rumors started quietly around September when Apple replaced the watch-like iPod nano with a longer one (some speculated this was to make room for the watch). Certainly, it picked  up steam in January, but it exited beforehand. Even though Apple is extremely organized, I don’t think they are that organized (planning to put meat on the innovation claim for a January conference in September). What do you think?

The other theory is that Apple found out about a watch-like product that Samsung is working on.  A Korean website, Ruliweb, has leaked screen shots of Samsung Altius; many consider this to be equivalent of iWatch.

This would be so funny if he wasn’t serious. This entire article is like an Onion article. Forbes: the sad, real Onion of technology news (especially Forbes ‘Contributors’). If Apple was truly worried about Samsung because of the leaked images, I would fear for Apple. Those leaked screenshots look so bad, more like wireframes than actual designs. Nothing was special about that Samsung watch. Remember, Samsung made many phones before the iPhone. Was Apple worried? Apple always has a unique way of doing things. The fact that a competitor is trying to make a product that Apple is currently making has never really changed what they have done in the past. Why should it be any different? Samsung is not out-innovating Apple, despite what many seem to think.

Is Apple becoming more proactive, or is Apple getting desperate?  The answer, in part, will determine the future direction of Apple [sic] stock.

What? You just write this whole article saying how Apple is getting desperate and then you end it by asking the question? Also, besides idiotic investors, no one really cares about the future direction of Apple’s stock. The stock means nothing. It drops when Apple breathes and goes up randomly as well. The entire stock market is run by idiots. Amazon goes up when they lose money, Apple goes down when they have a record quarter.

Look, Apple may or may not be leaking future product information. However, this isn’t because they are desperate. They and every other technology company do this all the time. The more people talk about them, the more customers they get. Even the US Government purposefully leaks information. They do it to control the press. But in Nigam Arora’s mind, it is desperation only when Apple does it. For example, does he not think that Samsung could have leaked the watch screenshots because they are desperate and scared of Apple’s upcoming watch? That is actually more likely than Apple being scared of anything Samsung is doing, but that thought never seems to cross Nigam’s mind. Once again, this is just another pointless, stupid, and crappy Apple hit article, written by an incompetent idiot.

Apple Is Doomed Again (iPhone 5 Edition Part 3)

Chinese iPhone-maker Foxconn is putting a hold on hiring and cutting production of the iPhone 5, the Financial Times reports.

Foxconn is China’s largest private sector employer.

There are all kinds of reasons this could be happening.

–Nicholas Carlson for Business Insider

 

Wow! Apple is cutting orders for the iPhone 5! That is pretty big news. The iPhone makes up most of Apple’s revenue, and if they are cutting down on orders, that isn’t good news for them. So why the reduction of orders? Let’s look at what Business Insider says:

Apple might be gearing up to build a new version of the iPhone. They have already been plenty of leaks about hte [sic] iPhone 5S.

Amazing! An actual reasonable idea from Business Insider. I give them credit for that. That is great analytical thinking (note: actual great analytical thinking not included). Actually, a horse could have come up with that. DUH. It might not even be true, but still, DUH. This happens every single year.

Apple could be switching manufacturers.

That would be unlikely, seeing as there have been no rumors (and, no offense Business Insider, but you don’t usually break stories and when you do, they seem to be false), I doubt this is true. Also, a huge shift like that would be unlikely seeing how much Apple has invested into Foxconn to improve the working conditions. And the last reason?

Apple could be screwed, dealing with a saturated smartphone market.

That’s the Business Insider I know and love! Really? Just, really? 47 million not enough for you? It’s more than any one Samsung, HTC, Nokia, or Motorola Phone. I do not think Apple has anything to worry about at this point in time. But no, they are screwed. DOOMED. Again. Again.