Month: January 2012

  • You Don’t Say?

    [Cameron Kaine, for *Seeking Alpha*, posted yesterday](http://seekingalpha.com/article/325282-amazon-determined-to-continue-its-assault-on-apple):

    >With many investors (including yours truly) ready to proclaim retail and technology giant Amazon (AMZN) as the No. 1 contender to Apple (AAPL), this makes its upcoming earnings announcement on Tuesday all the more interesting.

    and:

    >It was an instant success and was termed the “iPad killer” – much to the dismay of Apple investors.

    [Today, Stu Woo and John Letzing for the *Wall Street Journal* reports](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577195371567545142.html):

    >The Seattle-based e-commerce giant on Tuesday reported fourth-quarter revenue of $17.43 billion, up 35% from a year earlier. But profit plunged 57% to $177 million as the company continued to spend on warehouses, technology and its Kindle electronic devices. Amazon’s operating expenses rose 38% in the quarter from a year earlier, exceeding its 35% revenue increase.

    Sounds like Amazon is really challenging Apple’s top spot…

  • Apple’s Greatness, and Its Shame

    Andrew Winston:
    >But would anybody in their right mind be disappointed with $16.5 billion in quarterly cash flow instead of $17.5 billion?

    Yes, Wall Street. But then again you did qualify that with “right mind”.

    This is an incredibly over simplified view of the problem — paying more for manufacturing doesn’t solve the core issue. The core issue is that such poor labor standards are acceptable in China.

    Giving Foxconn more money just means that Foxconn makes more money.

    Apple could demand that it be passed along to the employees, but let’s be honest because that is going to require a lot of double checks.

    Back to the above quote — while $16.5 billion and $17.5 billion are still huge numbers, Wall Street tends to *not* reward declining numbers. So yeah, there would be disappointment — especially so if Wall Street were to find out that Cook just decided he would like to make *less* money.

  • Use Launch Center to Go Directly to Adding a New Task in OmniFocus

    Just as the title says, you can enter a URL scheme in App Cubby’s [Launch Center](http://appcubby.com/launch-center/) which takes you directly into OmniFocus’ Quick Entry screen.

    It’s dead simple [given this forum post](http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=23210&highlight=iPhone+quick+entry).

    ### Steps

    1. In Launch Center tap `Add New Launch…`
    2. Tap `Launch Website/App`
    3. Enter a title of your choosing.
    4. For the URL field type: `omnifocus:///add`
    5. Tap done.

    Works like a charm. This has moved Launch Center to my home screen.

  • App Cubby’s Launch Center

    Not much tech news invaded Macworld, but Launch Center did manage to get talked about quite a bit. I had a chance to download and toy with it while I was down at Macworld and I think it is one of those apps like Keyboard Maestro: it can be really good if you put in the time.

    Right now I only have three actions in it: Call wife, Flashlight, and New Tweet. Those three actions though eliminated the need for one app (flashlight) and makes two other “common” actions very easy. Right now it is a page 2 app for me, but it may just usurp Instapaper for page 1. ((No offense Instapaper, I just don’t use you that much on my iPhone.))

  • ‘Culture of Arrogance’

    Paul Robert Lloyd on Facebook:
    >Over time, I found it became less valuable; a utility for procrastination. As the company sought rapid growth, the design moved away from encouraging users to create close personal networks, towards openly sharing every aspect of their lives, with everybody and often unknowingly.

    True, but this bit is pretty scathing:

    >Much like producing advertising campaigns for cigarette companies, **working for Facebook has become an ethically questionable career move**.

    Ouch. Even given how much I hate Facebook — I can’t agree with that last quote. I do however think that Lloyd is right in saying that Facebook has become rather arrogant — so too has Google, Apple, Microsoft, and RIM.

  • ‘No Longer Loving Google’

    Nelson Minar on Google’s “Don’t be evil” mantra:

    >But I think Google as an organization has moved on; they’re focussed now on market position, not making the world better. Which makes me sad.

    Minar doesn’t think Google is disregarding their mantra, but I do. I think his above statement is actually pretty accurate because Google does seem to have ‘moved on’ and I think that while it may not be fair to say the company has been “evil” — it is fair to say they are trending towards that line.

  • Introducing the Updated Ristretto

    Great update. It addresses my biggest complaint: the open front pouch that used to let all my stuff spill out. Very nice.

  • The State of Apple | Macworld

    This was a great talk by Jason Snell, Andy Ihnatko, and John Gruber.

  • ‘People Are Spouting Nonsense About Chinese Manufacturing’

    Tim Worstall:
    >Boycotting Apple for better Foxconn wages and conditions is like having sex for virginity. Entirely counter-productive and exactly the wrong thing to be doing.

    Sounds about right to me.

  • ‘Book References in the Digital Age’

    Chuck Skoda:
    >How do we reference locations in electronic books? Historically, it’s been easy to throw out a page number, and many people were likely to have the same edition as you or at least one with the same page layout.

  • iFixit Thirsty Bag

    Georgia for iMore:
    >Inside the iFixit Thirsty Bag you’ll find two “molecular sieve packets”. Each of these contains powerful liquid absorption material that, according to iFixit, can reduce the atmospheric humidity to 1% RH and suck up pretty much all liquid inside your device over night.

    Sounds like a fantastic piece of emergency kit to keep in your house and for $6.95 it seems like you can’t go wrong. ((I ordered 2.))

  • Quote of the Day: Jason Kottke

    “I have a Kindle that I use to collect dust.”
  • Déjà Vu

    Déjà Vu is your visual memory. Use the app by taking pictures of things you would like to remember. For example, products you see in a magazine, recipes you read in a cooking book, wine labels in a restaurant, Newspaper article, DVDs, CDs or event flyers. Each picture is a visual memo. A regular camera app doesn’t distinguish those photos of stuff from “regular“ photos. Déjà Vu helps people organize and structure their visual memos in an easy and effective way. It does this by a tailored interface for tagging and categorization and integration of image recognition technology.

    Features

    * Quick shot camera (allows faster picture taking)
    * Image recognition integrated
    * Syncs with cloud account
    * Easy search (find your visual memos by keywords and tags)
    * Map location (locate your visual memos on a map)
    * Available on iPhone and Web

    Free for up to 30 visual memos/month. [Learn more at Kooaba](http://click.syndicateads.net/2012/01/DejaVu/brooksreview.html).

  • ‘The Friction in Frictionless Sharing’

    Nick Bradbury on Facebook’s frictionless sharing and why it adds more friction:
    >Because in the past the user only had to decide whether to share something they just read, but now they have to think about every single article before they even read it. *If I read this article, then everyone will know I read it, and do I really want people to know I read it?*

    Good point and I think it applies to far more than just Facebook. It’s the same as all the auto-tweet and auto-Facebook-update junk that iOS apps love baking in. Too often these apps default to sharing with all services possible, far too often.

    Look no further than someone you follow on Instagram that also automatically posts every picture to Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and Flickr — that’s not just tiring, it’s annoying.

  • Adding a Custom DuckDuckGo Search Bar to Your Site

    While at Macworld my buddy Pat Dryburgh told me that he updated the DuckDuckGo search field on the bottom of this site. We just pushed the changes today and it looks fantastic.

    Actually, the search field just looks like it always did.

    Pat just posted about how you add the very same to your site, so be sure to hit the link if you don’t want the iFrame option that I was using. You can also see some of the [params](https://duckduckgo.com/params.html) he set to match link colors to the theme of this site.

  • Do you have the paperback or the hardcover?

    Earlier today [I posted a link](https://brooksreview.net/2012/01/ibook-and-iad-pluralization-marco-org/) to [Marco Arment’s “iBook and iAd pluralization”](http://www.marco.org/2012/01/28/ibook-iad-pluralization) post. In my link post I said:

    >With this method (as I read it) this statement would not be correct: “I own the Steve Jobs iBook.” Instead it seems the correct statement would be: “I own the Steve Jobs book, from the iBookstore.” That’s far more clumsy in my mind.

    >You could, technically, leave out the “from the iBookstore” bit, but in doing so you would have no way of indicating that you purchased a digital version instead of a dead tree version.

    Apparently that was odd(?) to many (judging from email and Tweets), but [Tim Ricchuiti sums up the counterpoint in his blog](http://theelaborated.net/blog/2012/1/29/sign-of-the-times.html):

    >But why would anyone care to go to the trouble of specifying what version they bought? No one says “I bought the new Snow Patrol album from the iTunes Music Store.” And no one who heard “I bought the new Snow Patrol album” would assume you did so from Tower Records.

    In other words here’s the arguments that I have been hearing as to why defining a book as an ebook, iBook, or physical book is irrelevant:

    1. Things are changing so much that it is assumed all books are digital — or so Apple wants that to be the assumption.
    2. People never say: “I bought the paperback”, or “I bought the hardcover.”
    3. A book is a book — there’s no difference what kind you bought, just that you bought (and presumable read) the book.

    ### 1 ###

    I think this argument is clearly what Apple wants, but also is very clearly *not* where we are currently at in the book market. Not enough people buy books in digital form to make the assumption that all books are digital — yet.

    ### 2 ###

    It is true that people don’t usually clarify which version of the dead-tree book they purchased. But it is equally true that a paperback is a different book than the hardcover and thus the distinction is sometimes made. Perhaps the content isn’t different, but saying “there’s a great quote on page 51” will yield very different results depending on the version you buy.

    That’s why the differentiation is important. An iBook versus paper or Kindle book *is* a very different thing than the others. They will visually look different and that’s why it isn’t fair to lump the different types of book all into one category.

    These types of books are simply different.

    ### 3 ###

    I agree that reading the book is the most important part in owning a book. But as I said above there are very real differences between the books.

    Perhaps the most important of which is that digital books can be (and are) updated.

    The *Steve Jobs* biography was my example because I own the following versions:

    – Hardcover
    – Kindle
    – iBookstore book

    I can tell you from first hand experience that the reading experience is very different on each of the different mediums and that’s why the distinction matters to me. I don’t care which version you bought because it changes what you read, but I do care because it may not be the same as the book I read (sometimes in the minor content differences, but always in experience and layout).

  • The Trouble With Free

    Matthew Yglesias:

    >And so once the basic business proposition is “this company will make the most amazing Web services available and give them away for free in order to sell you to advertisers,” plummeting levels of privacy become inevitable.

    Very true, he also asks the million dollar question:

    >The business question is that if we assume some other firm or set of firms could come up with comparable quality products to Gmail, Youtube, Google Search, etc., how many people would be willing to pay a premium for privacy-respecting ad-free versions of them and how much would they be willing to pay?

    [I would](https://brooksreview.net/2011/03/fragility-free/), but I am not the majority.

  • iBook and iAd Pluralization

    Marco Arment:

    >The books available on the iBookstore are just called books.

    I had no clue, but this seems *more* clumsy.

    With this method (as I read it) this statement would not be correct: “I own the *Steve Jobs* iBook.” Instead it seems the correct statement would be: “I own the *Steve Jobs* book, from the iBookstore.” That’s far more clumsy in my mind.

    You could, technically, leave out the “from the iBookstore” bit, but in doing so you would have no way of indicating that you purchased a digital version instead of a dead tree version.

  • ‘The Android Oil Rig’

    MG Siegler on Android’s money making ability compared to Apple’s iOS:

    >Google’s best shot to turn Android into a business with iPhone-like profits would be to create an Android-powered oil rig and get drilling. 

    As Siegler states, it doesn’t seem silly to think that one day Android will make Google money, but it does seem silly to even imagine them making iOS like profits from Android. I think this is going to become a major problem for investors as they sit and watch Apple rake in the cash. Moreover it will be hard for Google to show a direct link from Android to profits — Android seems to be set up to indirectly profit Google and I think that will make it pretty hard to justify to Wall Street.