“It doesn’t matter who you were, how great your resume is and how many billions you have in the bank.”
— Om Malik
Year: 2012
-
‘The Larch (Camera)’
Andy Ihnatko on the iPhone 5 camera, comparing it to the Samsung Galaxy SIII and GX1:
>The Samsung Galaxy S III takes just as good pictures as the iPhone 5, when the lighting is at least halfway decent.And then:
>The GS III still has a ways to go before it can match the iPhone’s photographic abilities.
Really interesting analysis from Ihnatko on the cameras, I don’t agree with his overall assessment of the iPhone 5 camera, but if his examples are the only ones than it is hard not to agree. Overall I have found the iPhone 5 camera to be 50% better than that of the 4S. It’s a really good *camera*.
-
Crossposting
[I missed this feature with my initial look at Netbot](https://alpha.app.net/netbot/post/639827):
>To crosspost to Twitter from Netbot for iPhone, just tap on the Navbar in the Post window. On Netbot for iPad, tap on your Avatar.
I get why a lot of people will be happy about this, but to me this is the fundamental flaw facing App.net. Most people simply do not have the bandwidth to keep up with Twitter and App.net (I don’t), so why would you use both services? Crossposting is something I hate and I really think is bad for the overall health of both Twitter and App.net.
To me, cross posting is like that person that calls you, leaves a voicemail, and then texts you the same thing they just left your a voicemail about. That is to say: annoying.
**Update:** Also, [this is the best thing ever](http://cl.ly/image/0W1o2Q0C2T2L) (courtesy of [Panzer](https://alpha.app.net/panzer/post/641778)). And [here’s another](http://cl.ly/JuC1) from [Dan Frakes](https://alpha.app.net/danfrakes/post/641881). I love that because of the passive-aggressive nature of the dig to Twitter — well played Tapbots.
-
‘Netbot for iPad, an App.net Client for iPad’
Netbot, however, is the best client so far for the iPad. My reservations still stand about the overall ideology of the Netbot product. What that doesn’t mean though, is that I am opposed to using the app at all. The iPad app is very good, especially compared to the field.
-
‘Netbot: Tweetbot Reborn for App.net’
I was rather outspoken about Tweetbot when it came out, I’m sweeping that under the rug as history, call me names if you want.
[Federico Viticci has written up a nice review of Netbot](http://www.macstories.net/reviews/netbot-tweetbot-reborn-for-app-net/) — which is essentially a working version of Tweetbot for App.net. I wasn’t on the beta (for obvious reasons), but I did download it to check it out.
It’s exactly what it is billed to be, but it’s not for me. That’s not to say Netbot is bad, but [here’s what Stephen Hackett said](https://alpha.app.net/ismh/post/632916):
>Netbot is nice, but this is weird. Think I might prefer different app experiences for different services.
[Robb Lewis has a similar feeling](https://alpha.app.net/rmlewisuk/post/633544):
>Huh. I keep forgetting which app I’m in.
That’s a problem — I think — because the two services are hardly the same. Say what you will about the value of either, but it is hard to deny that they are identical — yet Netbot and Tweetbot are pretty much identical.
I don’t much care what app you use, but I will say that I find Netbot to be more of a “hedging our bets” move — not that this is a bad move — than a true let’s see what we can do *differently* for a new service. I had actually hoped that Tapbots would come out with a client that was radically different from Tweetbot, so part of this may be my disappointment there.
Anyway, I did my natural thing and goaded out some responses between my favorite client, Felix, and the blogger’s wet dream, Netbot. [You can read all the responses to it here](https://alpha.app.net/benbrooks/post/633816), to get an idea of the sentiment surrounding the two (spoiler: I am in the minority). ((Keep in mind, I naturally bring out the anger in people, don’t hold them to nasty remarks.))
Here’s my theory: those that embrace Netbot are those that *want* App.net to replace/duplicate/be Twitter ([perhaps the same people that do these things](https://brooksreview.net/2012/10/whining/)). That’s not a bad thing, it’s just a *thing*.
-
Over and Over Again
Alli Dryer reviewing Felix, an iPhone ADN client:
>The main problem with the icons, though, is that there are just way too many of them. A row of icons (reply, view conversation, repost, and star) accompanies every single post, and is therefore repeated over and over AND OVER on every screen that displays a stream. Coupled with the generous 256 character limit on App.net, this creates a situation where only two or three posts fit on screen at any time on my squatty iPhone 4S. I’d prefer it if these icons only revealed themselves after I tapped on a post (in order to save space).When I first started testing [Felix](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/felix-for-app.net/id562447652?mt=8) I felt the same way. The fact that the actions for each post are repeated makes the app look less visually appealing and I felt it detracted from the surrounding beauty of the app. Here’s what we are talking about:
Timeline view of Felix. It would present a much cleaner view if these icons were hidden until the user took some action as Dryer suggests. However, after using this app exclusively (it’s in my dock after all) I can say that I no longer want these icons tucked away. Having them readily available is simply better for me. I can respond with less taps/gestures and because of that the entire app’s flow feels faster to me.
I’ve tested a few ADN clients that use the old Tweetie style of “swipe to reveal the actions” and now they just feel slow to me. This is one instance where I am happy to let the beauty of something be slightly marred for the benefit of utility.
-
Woz
[Slashdot held an open Q&A with Apple Co-Founder Steve Wozniak](http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/10/01/1527257/ask-steve-wozniak-anything#comments), it’s a rather long thread to read through, and like a lot of these open Q&A’s it is terribly unorganized and presented like someone would present something to people that they hate, anyways, here’s my choice quote from Woz:
>If you remember, we ported iTunes to Windows. We now addressed 100% of the world’s market with this integrated system (iPod/iTunes) and it began the era of Apple that we are now in. So why don’t we port iTunes to Android? Did something get closed up? I love Apple products and iTunes and wish it were on my Android products too.
There’s two fascinating things in this quote. I want to break them down a bit more.
## Android iTunes
I like the idea that Apple is shooting themselves in the foot a bit with iTunes — at least at first glance. Apple undoubtedly ported iTunes to Windows — not to gain a Windows foot hold — but to expand the iPod market. What good is an iPod to a Windows user if you can’t sync it with Windows? Limiting the iPod to just the Mac market, also limits the growth potential to *just* the Mac market.
However, *not* porting iTunes to Android does nothing to limit Apple. Instead it effectively locks in iTunes customers to Apple devices. That’s just as savvy a business move as porting iTunes to Windows was. Apple needed iTunes on Windows to grow the iPod and later the iOS market. Apple doesn’t need iTunes on Android and in fact likely sees doing so as opening up the door to competition.
## We
It is very interesting to me that Woz chose the wording of “we”. There’s no doubt that Woz had a large part in Apple, but I very seriously doubt he currently has a hand in Apple affairs. I could be way off, but that’s the sense that I get. So using “we” sounds very odd to me.
This is especially odd given the next post he makes, writing:
>I wish that instead of all these lawsuits Apple was sitting down and cross-licensing with the other players. They have come up some very good features without complicating the UI
Now that Woz is talking about something he loathes, he switches from “we” to “they”. I won’t harp too much on this, I just thought it was very telling about how Woz still associates and doesn’t associate with Apple.
This doesn’t really matter, but I always find it interesting how Woz seems to waffle between embracing what Apple does and condemning what Apple does.
-
For Cable Modem Advice: The B&B Podcast #14
[Brian X. Chen](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/time-warner-cable-modem-rental/):
>Time Warner Cable, the big broadband and cable provider, is planning to start charging customers a monthly fee of $3.95 for renting a cable modem from the company. It said in notifications mailed to customers this week that the new fee would go into effect over the next two months.I am linking to the fourteenth episode of The B&B Podcast where Shawn and I talked about cable modems. The bottom line is that you want to buy your own — they aren’t much money, rarely fail, and don’t line the pockets of greedy cable companies. [You can check if Time Warner supports it here](http://www.timewarnercable.com/nynj/support/topic.ashx/Buy+or+Lease+Your+Modem), also most cable modem manufacturers tell you where it is compatible. I personally only use Motorola Surfboard Modems.
-
Consumer Reports: The Voice of Reason… No Really
Jeff Bartlett for Consumer Reports:
>Overall, Apple impressed our staff with the graphic presentation for the interface, results, signage, and points of interest info. However, there is less customization throughout than Google–a mixed blessing when driving, where distractions can be dangerous. Google comes across as more business like and less fun.Usually I can’t stand to read a Consumer Reports, well, anything, but Bartlett offers a well reasoned and researched post. Hats off.
He sums up the maps situation really well, even though he is only focusing on the navigation element:
>When getting down to the nitty gritty, Google provides a better overall package, but we feel that both provide a good solution for standard software. We expect the competition between the companies will benefit customers with ongoing improvements.
In other words his entire post spells out the fact that the Apple Maps are not as good as Google’s, but that they do still work and are expected to get better. ((It’s like Hell froze over.))
[via DF] -
Whiny Things On App.net That Drive Me Nuts
1. You reposted something from Twitter, but didn’t bother removing the `@` mention to the user that doesn’t have an account, or worse, doesn’t have the same account name, on App.net.
2. You reposted something from Twitter and used a `t.co` link in doing so. Those suck *even* on Twitter, why would you bring that crap to App.net?
3. You never post on App.net, but when you do you simply ask: “Is this thing still on?” You are *so* clever.
4. You openly complain on App.net about not knowing what to post where.
5. You’ve set up a tool to repost things you posted on Twitter, but then don’t bother to check the replies people make to your comments on App.net. -
Pricing App.net
I’ve seen more than a few people talk about how today’s price reduction (from $50/year to $36/year or $5/month) to App.net’s service being a good thing, but simply not good *enough*. The argument is typical: those who wouldn’t pay $50, *still* won’t pay $36, and that argument is actually correct.
[Marco Arment sums the argument up nicely](http://www.marco.org/2012/10/01/app-net-price-drop):
> This is a nice move, but I don’t think it’s enough of a price drop to meaningfully change the adoption rate. Most people who balked at $50 will also balk at $36.
I ask something different: so what?
I’m one of the earlier users of App.net, I also don’t use *any* other services like App.net ((I occasionally respond to people on Twitter, but I have to be pretty bored to do so.)) and so I think it’s fair to say that I am one of the more dedicated users of App.net. With that said I haven’t talked with @Dalton or @Berg about what their plans are for the future, but I suspect that they aren’t after the two things that many assume they *are* after:
– Fast adoption.
– Replacing Twitter.The simple fact is that neither are possible with a paid product. It wouldn’t matter if App.net charged $1 a year, adoption would still be slow. There’s no further proof needed than a perusal through the iOS App Store and looking at comments that $0.99 apps get — many people thinking these apps are “a ripoff” — yet we are only talking about a dollar.
I’ve long thought $50/year is too high for App.net and $36/year sounds a lot better, however in the end it doesn’t really matter. The network, the user base, that is already present on App.net replaces the value I received from Twitter two-fold at this point and have largely proven that they don’t much care if they pay $50 or $36.
The conversations are slower on App.net, as are the updates, but that makes me engage *more* with the service, not less. Yes, Gruber doesn’t post on App.net that much — but there are plenty of others that do post. If you signed up for App.net and are sitting around waiting for it to be able to “replace” Twitter for you, then you simply signed up for the wrong service — stay on Twitter.
However if you signed up for App.net because you are fed up with Twitter — for whatever reason — then App.net can likely replace it for you.
-
‘Map Companies in Glass Houses…’
Harry Marks with a dose of reality:
>*Using* a maps application or GPS device takes a modicum of common sense.I had quite the debate this weekend with people over the maps app — keep in mind these are not nerd, just consumers — all of whom thought Apple was doomed because they had *no* maps app. Not that Maps was bad, that the coverage over the true problem is so bad that consumers don’t even know what the real problem is. And that’s the problem, not that consumers are actually having that many problems, but that the press has built up the issues to be so bad that consumers think there aren’t workable maps on the iPhone.
There was a lot of head-meets-desk this weekend.
-
60 Mountain Lion Tips by David Sparks and Brett Terpstra
Great new book from two of the smartest Mac guys around. I was lucky enough to be able to skim the book last night and I set tons of bookmarks on my iPad of things I didn’t know about that I wanted to come back and learn more about. It’s always amazing to me how many things I still don’t know about the Mac even though I am always looking for more tips.
One of the great things I didn’t know about was that there is more than one keyboard shortcut you can use in the save dialog — I thought there was only one for shifting the folder to the desktop — oh but I was wrong.
Great book of tips, every Mac user should have it.
