Interesting post from Ryan Whitwam, arguing that Google as an ISP is actually a very good thing. I’m still skeptical, but Whitwam makes an excellent point with this:
>For Google’s business to remain strong, it needs us to use the services and feed in more data. However, Google knows full well that if it loses the public’s trust, its business goes down the tubes. It simply cannot afford to do anything untoward as an ISP unless it wants to risk its real source of income: our data.
He’s right that it *is* in Google’s best interest to “not be evil” with regards to their ISP service, but I also think there is a secondary problem with this argument. What I, and other geeks, see as “evil” — most users just see as no big deal. If you told my mom she could have free internet, but Google gets more data about her, she wouldn’t even hear the words past “free internet”.
That’s the reality. I think Google will try to be a good, respectful ISP, but I think they also know that they don’t always *have* to be.
I have changed the weekly review from a post on the site, to an email newsletter. First one goes out later today, so hit this link and subscribe. Or subscribe [anytime here](https://brooksreview.net/category/weekly-review/).
Remember that video a while back, the one where you could swipe along the keyboard on an iPad to select text — everyone drooled over it, and it was made for jailbroken devices? Yeah, remember that?
[Version 3.2 of WriteUp now has that](http://writeup.prasannag.com/2012/07/26/writeup-supports-swipe-selection/). Pretty neat stuff.
I don’t use WriteUp regularly, but I just checked out this feature and now I want it for the rest of iOS. It works and it works really well. I don’t know the ramifications of it if you are a fast typist — that is, will it move the cursor accidentally because you type fast? I don’t know, but just moving around the cursor like this is magical.
If you are an iOS dev that has an app where users write chunks of text, you really need to consider this addition.
>When you think about it, the apps that don’t get along with sandboxing are doing things I now realize I don’t want my apps doing. TextExpander for example works by being a system-wide keylogger. Apps that can use stuff from your iPhoto library do so by just reading it, with or without permission.
Short post, but I think it is clear that sand boxing and the like is a fine restriction for many apps. It’s the edge cases that do odd stuff that really cause problems.
[Marco Arment follows up on his post](http://www.marco.org/2012/07/26/not-just-geeks) [from earlier](https://brooksreview.net/2012/07/mas-marco/) about the Mac App Store, clarifying ((I don’t think this is a direct response to my post.)) :
>Geeks aren’t the only people who have the problems that these apps solve, and we’re not the only people who can figure out how to find, buy, and use these tools. Give the rest of the computer-owning world some credit.
>This isn’t about a few geeks being inconvenienced. It’s about a very large number of Mac users, far beyond geeks, being discouraged from buying (or being unable to buy) the software they need from the Mac App Store, and why that’s not in Apple’s best long-term interests.
Again, I disagree. Arment undoubtedly knows more about the intricacies of Apple’s App Store, but I simply don’t buy this argument. In my last post I misconstrued Arment’s post as him giving up on the Mac App Store, and I also pegged this as a “geek” problem. While I am wrong about those two issues, I still don’t believe there is a risk of the Mac App Store becoming a wasteland of any sort.
Arment is right about non-geeks being able to easily find and purchase apps outside of the Mac App Store — it’s how software has traditionally been purchased, well once software started being sold as digital downloads — but here I really think Arment and I disagree is on his last sentence that I quoted above, again:
>It’s about a very large number of Mac users, far beyond geeks, being discouraged from buying (or being unable to buy) the software they need from the Mac App Store, and why that’s not in Apple’s best long-term interests.
I don’t disagree with the notion that there are problems with the Mac App Store, but how exactly are users being “discouraged from buying” apps in the Mac App Store? I am guessing that this comment is related to Arment’s earlier statement:
>My argument was more nuanced: many previously-acceptable apps have been effectively kicked out of the App Store because they’re incompatible with the current implementation of sandboxing, and this hurts the *customers* of those apps enough that *they* will lose confidence in buying nontrivial software from the Store in the future.
To clarify this in my own head, I do a bit of role playing. Let’s say there’s an app I love called iBanana. iBanana uses some hack-y stuff that Apple hates and that prevents it from being sandboxed, so they are forced out of the app store. But I bought iBanana in the app store, now I don’t get new updates and am forced to (likely) re-buy the app.
This is likely the most discouragement that I will see from buying other apps in the app store (I am assuming no developer is ridiculous enough to petition customers to boycott the Mac App Store).
I am guessing the thinking is that when I go to buy another app, I stop and remember the iBanana fiasco, go to the developers website and buy from there — thus leaving crappy apps in the store. That makes sense, but I have two issues with this thinking that — in my mind — make it a trivial issue.
### Not a Recurring Event
The big problem is that Apple changed their mind about what was allowed in the app store, they forced out apps because they wanted/needed/whatever reason to implement sandboxing. Such a change is not likely to occur again, so while apps had to recently leave the store — it’s not *likely* to be a regular occurrence for Mac App Store customers.
It sucks this time around and *current* Mac App Store customers might have a bad taste in their mouths, but all will be forgotten in time — assuming Apple doesn’t pull crap like this on a regular basis, or really, ever again.
That is, I don’t expect us to be regularly talking about apps that have been “forced out” of the app store by rule changes.
I do, however, agree that if Apple continues down such a path of constant rule changing and forcing out apps — that at that point geeks should begin petitioning users not to buy from the Mac App Store. But I don’t think that is where we are now. What we are seeing right now is the side effect of launching a platform before it should be, and moving that platform to where Apple wants it.
### Mac OS X Petitions You to Use the Mac App Store
System Preference panel for app warnings.
With Mountain Lion, Apple set the OS to *warn* users if the app is *not* from a trusted developer or the Mac App Store. That’s the default setting, with users having to navigate to System Preferences to change this.
So whenever a user opts out of the app store, downloads an app from an “unknown” developer they see this warning:
The warning dialog for SpiderOak — a “untrusted” Mac app.
That dialog is Apple’s way of telling all of its users — by default — that they should be wary about installing such apps, when most of the time they really don’t need to be wary. I can see why Apple did this, and it’s likely not primarily to promote the Mac App Store, but to combat malware and such.
At the same time, it hurts developers who aren’t in the Mac App Store because now a user has to pause and think: “do I trust this person?” Ouch. Then again, installing software from the web has always been a bit like the wild west, so maybe one question won’t hurt. But I have to think that it does stop today’s youth in their tracks — you know those that don’t remember scanning their PC every hour and finding new viruses on it.
### Going Forward
The reality is that Apple’s Mac App Store, as devised, (as a clone of the iOS App Store) in OS X is a rather big mess. However if I have to choose as to whether this dies the slow death of Ping, or is constantly pushed until it’s the default, well I think the latter is the likely case and I don’t see that as being a very big leap from where Apple currently is.
Arment is right, it’s not *just* a “geek problem” as I inappropriately labeled it. It is an Apple problem, but it’s also a developer’s problem. Here’s the thing though, I don’t see Apple giving in on this and I certainly don’t see Mac developers “jumping ship” over this.
That leaves developers with the issue of having to get customers to trust them enough to run their software, even though their OS is telling them to be wary.
>And the Mac App Store, in its current incarnation, just isn’t built for us. It’s built for people looking for casual apps and games. (Sorry, there’s one more category: Apple’s own apps, which don’t have to play by Apple’s rules.)
I don’t see that as being the case either, because if 1Password can find a way to stay in the store and Adobe can ship Lightroom to it I think it stands to reason that solid, powerful apps can and will always be a part of the Mac App Store.
[Marco Arment is done with the Mac App Store, and worries](http://www.marco.org/2012/07/26/mac-app-store-future):
>The Mac App Store is in significant danger of becoming an irrelevant, low-traffic flea market where buyers rarely venture for serious purchases.
His arguments are not new and he certainly is not alone, but I think he is wrong.
Arment feels burned by the fact that he embraced the Mac App Store heavily, only to later see apps he purchased leave the Mac App Store — thus offering him no more updates — because of sandboxing rules (among other things). I don’t disagree that some of Apple’s rules are heavy handed and over reaching for geeky Mac users, but for the general Mac user, I think Apple has done a nice job creating a trusted place to buy Mac apps.
Some of the best apps will never make it to the Mac App Store, apps like:
If any of those do make it, they will likely be crippled. With the exception of Dropbox, every single app on that list is an app that I have tried to get my wife to use, and failed to do. Because she’s not a geek. And non-geeks tend not to be as effected by the apps leaving the Mac App Store as their geek counterparts are.
It *is* a big deal that some apps are leaving, it’s important, but let’s not kid ourselves here — it’s pretty much only important to geeks.
I’ve managed to survive on iOS without these geeky apps — where TextExpander exists, but isn’t as useful.
Additionally, if you look at the “quality” of the top-grossing apps in the iOS app store, you can see that they aren’t *great* apps in the same way that those listed above are. They are inexpensive or free games with paid currency you have to buy to use in the game. Apple doesn’t seem to care, because 30% is 30% and users like those apps.
As geeks we don’t want to see App Stores overrun with crap, but crap sells.
As for the worry of ‘low-traffic’, well Apple addressed that yesterday — ensuring that the Mac App Store will forever have high traffic: they made the Mac App Store the only place to get your OS updates for OS X, putting a notice in the Notification Center when you need to check for updates. Every Mac user will have to go into the Mac App Store from time to time, and I am certain many will click over to see what apps are featured. I can’t think of a better way to assure an app store of continued traffic.
As a geek, I’m right there with Marco, but I just don’t think it matters to Apple or non-geeks.
>Shawn and Ben talk about the Kansas City rollout of Google Fiber, the just-announced Google Fiber TV, internet speeds and privacy policies, Mountain Lion, the Mac App Store, Notification Center, Sparrow’s acquisition and email clients in general, and speculations about the future of Apple TV and how that could relate to either Siri and or the theoretical iPad Mini.
John Eligon for the New York Times reports on Google’s new fiber network:
>The company also has offered people in wired areas the option of obtaining a free 5-megabit-per-second broadband connection, but they will have to pay a $300 construction fee.
The overall pricing on Google Fiber seems cheap to me for the speed they are offering, but I have long been a critic of an ad company being in charge of my access to the internet. I don’t think Google will inject ads, but why wouldn’t they build deep customer profiles based off of what they know about you and your internet activities. Whether you have “nothing to hide” or not, this is a big deal.
Think of it this way, if Google asked to follow you for a day and record everything you did, would you let them? I’m not saying you even get anything for free, just would you let someone follow you all day, record what you did, and potentially — maybe — sell that information to someone else. Would you do it?
Now the free internet access is even more concerning to me than the paid, but I think both would offer such privacy concerns for me that I would feel *better* about staying with Comcast — [and that is saying a lot](https://brooksreview.net/2011/06/comcast/).
>Hiss is an OSX app that forwards notifications from Growl enabled apps to Notification Center in Mountain Lion.
It’s still abet app, so you can try it for free. The app replaces Growl (looks like you still need Growl installed, just not running) on your Mac and shows the notifications in ML’s Notification Center. It works. It has no preferences for what is shown, which is a bummer, but I do like the consistency of using this instead of Growl. Worth checking out for sure.
**Update**: L[ooks like there is a version of Growl that is currently in beta that moves notifications to 10.8 notification center](http://growl.posterous.com/growl-2-and-hardwaregrowler-2-both-in-beta) — which will make this app redundant. Still great until then.
Shawn Blanc, writing about iOS and Mountain Lion, and where and why OS X is headed where it is:
>To build iOS, Apple needed its years of experience making OS X. And now, to refine OS X, Apple needs its newfound expertise from iOS to bring power and simplicity back to the Mac.
You should actually go read Shawn’s entire post because it is one of the best posts I have read about OS X, iOS, and the direction Apple is taking. The notion that Shawn presents, of Apple having the ability to throw out everything and start from scratch with iOS — and then bringing those paradigms back to the Mac — is spot on.
What OS X is shifting into *is* more iOS like, just probably not in the way that you think it is. It’s not about features or UI, it’s about simplifying things that have been unnecessarily difficult in the past.
I hope that Apple continues on this trend, I hope that we see all files in iCloud stores, I hope that more and more [I don’t have to worry about where something is](http://informationarchitects.net/blog/mountain-lions-new-file-system/), or how to find X. I think that’s the computers job.
Me thinks the latter is the case, as Nick Bilton reports:
>Mr. Costolo said he wanted to migrate away from developers building more external Twitter apps, to a world where developers and companies are building products inside the Twitter platform — a move, he argued, that would create a better experience for users.
That sounds an awful lot like Facebook apps to me, than it does iOS apps. How many Facebook apps do you depend on daily, or are willing to pay money for? I actually don’t know the answer since I don’t use Facebook, but I’d guess that the answer is less than how you feel about iOS apps.
I think that none of this comes as a shock, and the bigger question is not whether Twitter wants developers building Twitter clients (they don’t), but whether they will ever cut off access to existing third-party Twitter apps. I’ve long thought that they would have to cut off access, otherwise how do you stop developers from building new Twitter apps?
Garrett Murray on the [iCache Geode](http://www.icache.com) that he backed on Kickstarter:
>Frankly, I’m surprised the iCache Geode is legal to sell in the United States. It could effectively be used as a skimming and cloning system. The price point of the iCache Geode is low enough that nearly anyone could afford to buy it and go around cloning credit cards.
I had missed this device/case when it went through Kickstarter, or at least I missed it, but Garrett Murray will save me the trouble of buying. Noting that he only has had 20% success rate with the card and it takes about 30 seconds to get ready. The above quote though is very concerning — it is already a known issue that less than reputable wait staff have card skimmers that they use. The difference is that these villains have used skimmed card data to sell to people, the Geode basically makes the data instantly useable to them — on the spot.
That alone is enough reason for this product to not be legal.
Luckily though, as Murray notes, it doesn’t work all that well.
