Category: Articles

#### App Saturation and the Lack of Unique Features ####

On [episode #8 of the B&B Podcast](http://thebbpodcast.com/2011/04/episode-8/) Shawn Blanc and I discussed the hottest new Twitter client: [Tweetbot](http://tapbots.com/software/tweetbot/). While I have yet to decide if I like Tweetbot any more, or less, than I like the official Twitter app — I did note two annoying things:

1. The app doesn’t have the “one” single feature that is unique to it.
2. The app feels like a nice wrapper of eye candy applied over the existing apps out there (mainly the official Twitter app).

This though is a very common problem that I see over and over in the App Store and I think it comes from the amount of saturation that app categories like RSS feed readers, note taking apps, and Twitter apps are experiencing. It’s not a factor of bad development — it’s [groupthink](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink), or perhaps more accurately lack of innovation.

### Being Unique ###

I don’t want to pick on Tweetbot, but it is one of the best examples of what I am referring to, it enters a very well populated landscape — Twitter apps for iPhones. What is fascinating is that if you really boil an app like Tweetbot down, there is no innovative feature — there is not a single feature that you can point to and say: “yeah you only get that on Tweetbot”. Yes there are uniques gestures, and taps, but those are all performing the same basic actions as other Twitter apps.

It is not that Tweetbot is the same as every other app, its just that Tweetbot is like a new Honda Civic — it’s new, but it’s not really *new*. Still a great car, but hard to say if it really is any better than the last model.

You could also argue that the ability to set a list in place of your timeline is just such a unique feature, but I would argue that it is just a different way of showing the lists (instead of making me drill through a menu like the official app does, I can view these lists on the main screen — even though you still view them relatively the same once you find the lists). The two examples I gave in the podcast of good, unique, features was for [Twitterrific](http://iconfactory.com/software/twitterrific) and [Echofon](http://www.echofon.com/).

The former has a unified timeline where you see mentions and DMs all in the timeline with your ‘normal’ tweets. That is something that (as far as I know) is only done in Twitterrific and while I don’t care for that feature, it is compelling to many users — it is a reason to buy the app — a way to differentiate itself from other Twitter apps.

Echofon has a similar feature (one that it alone does not have) which is to sync the place of your timeline across all other Echofon apps that you are using (iOS and Mac). That’s a fantastic feature and one that has made me wish that the rest of the app was better so that I could use it. That’s a feature that is incredible compelling compared to the rest of the Twitter apps out there, it is more unique than it is common.

Too often though — as I believe the case may be with Tweetbot — we get a new app in a crowded category that offers no unique feature, thus they just serve as more clutter. They may still be good and still look better than other apps, perhaps even they are cheaper, but if they weren’t in the store it wouldn’t be a huge loss, because they aren’t offering features that can’t be found in other apps.

This type of problem is seriously apparent in the note taking app market where every app seems to sync with Dropbox and there is really very little difference between the apps out there. Writer for Information Architects differentiates itself with a crazy 3-line-only view and a custom designed, iPad optimized, font. Notesy gives the user the ability to switch between fixed width and variable width fonts. The built in Notes app gives you the ability to sync with iTunes…

Why release an app if you aren’t going to *add* to the existing offerings something that will be truly useful to ,at least, a select few users?

### A Wrapper ###

The last complaint I lodged against Tweetbot was that it just seemed like an incredibly beautiful wrapper that was put over the official Twitter app. That is, everything is too similar in layout and functionality ((Again, excluding those fancy gestures and tap controls.)) that it just seems like you are using the same old app with a lovely new theme applied.

This all sounds rather horrible, like I am accusing people of swiping someone else’s work — that’s not what I am saying. It’s no different than if someone built another WordPress theme with the text down the left and a small menu on the right, but different colors and fonts — they aren’t copying the theme I use, they just employed a similar layout without a slightly different wrapper.

The more likely cause is that they chose a similar layout because they liked the way it worked and the user familiarity with that layout. Nothing wrong with that — except that I have to again ask where they are adding value that didn’t already exist?

We all like to theme things, but is such a theme really needed in a crowded marketplace?

Is a Kia automatically better if it is made to look like a Ferrari? Perhaps to a few people who want a slow Ferrari, but to most I would guess they wouldn’t care all that much — most are buying a Kia for reasons other than looks. ((Over generalization perhaps, but they have killer warrantees with very low prices. I would think that this is the main reason people buy Kia’s, and not performance or looks.)) Especially if the one that looked like a Ferrari is a more expensive option.

### The Question ###

Is your app a Ferrari, or does it just *look* like one?

If you found yourself reading this wondering what compelling features a Twitter app could add, or that a note taking app could add — then you are asking the right questions. The questions that need to be asked before a developer starts coding a new app. This isn’t saying that Tweetbot is bad, or that it isn’t worth the $2 — all I am saying is that time and time again it seems I am testing the same app with an improved color scheme.

There have always been those few apps that insist on looking like their physical, real world, equivalent. Calculator apps, date books, calendars, note taking apps, “stickies” — you know what I am talking about. Despite there being better options out there, better ways of displaying the data, designers stick with the known representation of the tool.

Now, though, Apple is taking it too far.

If you have seen any of the screenshots linked across the web about the new iCal interface you know what I am talking about. If you haven’t seen those, iCal is looking a lot like it does on the iPad right now in Lion’s developer preview. It’s ugly, and we should be way past this style by now.

I have [proposed a better calendaring solution](https://brooksreview.net/2010/09/sucky-calendars/) and [Marco Arment has talked about what he would like to see](http://www.marco.org/480805355) as well. The problem right now is that we have the graphics processing power and the design acumen to make realistic looking interfaces, and designers think they should make them look realistic.

Who wants that?

In theory, and perhaps in movies, this is a great look — in fact from an eye candy perspective it looks amazing. The problem is that these apps that mimic a real world interface make for pretty terrible computing interfaces. Real interfaces, those printed on paper for calendars, or molded out of plastic for calculators are static — computing interfaces are dynamic. The difference is that to make a sheet of paper show 7 days worth of appointments means that you have to print all seven days. Once it is past the first day it would be impossible to dynamically shift the content so that it keeps the seven forward looking days view. On the computer though this is easily done, yet no one does it — why?

I guess it is because that is not how paper calendars work, and that is just a silly convention to stick with.

In the early days of computing modeling interfaces, such as a calculator, after an actual calculator was very user friendly because users had a base understanding of how to work a calculator already. This lowered the bar for the prerequisite knowledge to use early applications. Ditto apps like calendars, datebooks and address books.

Now, I would guess that most “new” computer users actually don’t know that these things are mimicking their physical counterparts — well they know in the sense that it looks like a physical good, but I doubt they every think: “I used to have a calculator just like this one”.

How many teenagers today are likely to have ever owned or used a DayRunner? Mimicking these interfaces is not about creating a more usable interface, or about giving the consumer what they know — it is about creating eye candy, while the usability and productivity of the app suffers. Eye candy can aid a design and the usability — as it did with the first computer applications — more often though is forces the app to look and behave in a manner that is not very helpful to the user.

Ask any person who has used [Soulver](http://www.acqualia.com/soulver/) for Mac or iOS if they think Soulver was difficult to figure out — it is leaps and bounds better than any other calculator app, yet it doesn’t look like any other calculator app. It took me all of two minutes to figure out how to work the app and to realize just how much better it is. What Soulver did was not try to replicate the beloved HP 12c, instead they rethought what a calculator app was to be — and how it should be designed if it is only made for use on a computer, from day one.

It is what calculators would have been if they were invented at the same time computers were, instead of what we have with most calculator apps.

### Little Bits of Paper ###

Brent Simmons [calls it](http://inessential.com/2011/03/31/torn_paper_derangement_syndrome_tpds_) Torn Paper Derangement Syndrome (TPDS) and I most certainly have it:

>If this rumored new UI for iCal is real and not just a mockup by a misanthropic Photoshop sadist, then I’m going to be distracted forever by the bits of torn paper under the toolbar.

When I used paper notepads in school I would take an Exacto knife to remove those bits of paper weekly — can’t stand it. It is a sign of a flawed product — one that is designed to tear with ease and perfection at the top, but that never lives up to its expectation, much like checks (remember tearing those out). Why remind everyone of the imperfect days of yore by bring that bit of imperfection across. That is akin to Microsoft deciding that Excel should stop calculating *pi* after 3.14 — stupid and pointless given the tools at hand today.

Nobody misses those bits of paper. Nobody wants iCal to look like their Franklin Covey — people want it to work like that, but not look like that. That is: people love the feel of pen and paper and scratching stuff off, but that feeling is not best replicated through showing static, arbitrary, bits of torn paper. People love how organized they became with these old school paper tools, yet instead of taking that organization to the next level with computing we just get the same thing we had in paper form (less the paper cuts and waste).

The way to get people to love a calendar app is not to make it look like what they used 10 years ago, but to make it better than what they used 10 years ago. So far the only feature we have that consistently works is alarms that sound 15 minutes prior to meetings. Not even invites work on a regular, consistent basis across all devices.

### Feels Nice ###

The best part about how these interfaces work is how they feel — can’t you feel the texture of the paper grain as you move your mouse pointer over it? Wait, all I feel is the glass desk below my mouse and subtle twinge of annoyance as I pass by the intended resting spot for my mouse pointer. We can’t feel the textures drawn on the screen.

Real life interfaces are made to be pressed with the wide human finger, to be grasped in your hand and held in your briefcase. That’s why buttons can never be too small and why writing zones are large and the physical size is critically important. That’s also why a lot of these interfaces transfer nicely to touch based devices like the iPad or iPhone. That’s also why they suck so much on a ‘regular’ computer — a mouse pointer is tiny and doesn’t need huge click zones. Fonts are legible at small sizes and don’t need huge areas to fill. Screen sizes are anything but static and the interface needs to work well on all of them.

There is a separation between the needs of the real world and the needs of the computer world. Making direct porting of interfaces a poor decision.

### Looks Great, Sucks to Use ###

I can’t tell you how many apps there are that I could say the above about. Then there’s the small subset of apps that seem to really get how people actually want to, and do use, their apps — those are the apps that just leave you saying: wow.

These are the apps we need and crave.

It’s great that you spent 16 hours making that wood grain and stainless steel look exactly like the real thing — looks nice — but does your app work? Does your app make sense?

Calvetica isn’t good because it works like a DayRunner — it’s good because it works well with my fat fingers tapping at a slick, backlit, glass screen. It works because when I turn in to landscape the information changes, it works because they thought about how people use the product (yet, they have not solved Marco’s complaint, nor most of mine.) The subtle texture of the Reeder background doesn’t make me love the app more, the navigation and presentation of only what is important makes me love the app. I don’t think OmniFocus on the iPad is better than it is on the Mac because it looks more like a paper check list — I know it is better because it shows me only what I really *need* to see at any given time.

Some of the apps that are coming out for mixing boards and DJ scratching — they all look really cool, but they suck to use. You can’t physically turn a knob on the iPad screen — so why make knobs an essential part of your interface?

Why haven’t people figured this out yet?

I really like playing Monopoly, but only when I have a couple of monopolies — otherwise it just isn’t fun to slowly go bankrupt. I suspect that’s why so many people despise the game. When I started to learn about what a ‘real’ monopoly was I began to think how sweet it must be to be someone like Bill Gates — who clearly had a Monopoly at Microsoft in the late 90s. I watched and read with great interest as the European Union tried to smack around Microsoft on anti-competitive practices and other fancy words that only mean: ‘unfair’. I know monopolies are not good for consumers or for innovation, but I can’t help but to look at them in awe — to build a monopoly is no easy thing, to stay a monopoly *is* easy.

Short of breaking up a company, the most regulators can do are to force companies to change small bits (e.g. not installing only Internet Explorer by default or Windows Media Player) or fine you. When you are a monopoly fines mean nothing — you have the money to cover it — and breaking apart a company usually only makes the ‘real’ owners of the company even more money. Antitrust laws, and the enforcement of them, is a pretty tricky matter and not always effective.

For example Verizon and AT&T originally came from the same company and now, decades later, stand to soon be the only two wireless carriers in the U.S. that matter. ((Sorry Sprint, but you know it’s true.))

Back to this Google thing though — Microsoft running and telling mommy and daddy on Google. [Steve Lohr for the New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/technology/companies/31google.html) reports:

>Microsoft plans to file a formal antitrust complaint on Thursday in Brussels against Google, its first against another company. Microsoft hopes that the action may prod officials in Europe to take action and that the evidence gathered may also lead officials in the United States to do the same.

You see they are starting in Europe because they stand a better chance at winning (anything) there, which could in turn spur the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to launch a similar investigation.

The entire complaint seems to come down to one issue Microsoft has with Google, Lohr again:

>But a central theme, Microsoft says, is that Google unfairly hinders the ability of search competitors — and Microsoft’s Bing is almost the only one left — from examining and indexing information that Google controls, like its big video service YouTube.

Basically, Bing can’t search YouTube in the same way that Google can and since Google owns YouTube, Microsoft is claiming that this is anti-competitive behavior — which, if true, it is. The question though is if that constitutes an antitrust violation. Europe has different laws than the U.S., and I won’t pretend to know them, but here in the U.S. it is generally understood that antitrust violations are [defined as](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antitrust):

>consisting of laws to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints and monopolies or unfair business practices

OK so that doesn’t help — which is exactly why antitrust regulation is so hit and miss. On the surface it would seem that Google does indeed have a monopoly in search and text ads, I think even Google would be hard pressed to argue that. So far though they don’t seem to be acting in a manner that would be unfair and thus stop Bing from succeeding in any of those areas — except with how they can index YouTube, which is why that is the point of attack for Microsoft.

Microsoft in this case is hoping that the overwhelming popularity and the scent of unfair practices with YouTube indexing will be enough to cause the EU to take some form of action against Google. People know Google is massively popular and Microsoft is hoping that they can make people stop saying ‘popular’ and start saying ‘monopoly’. But should they?

I think not and I think Microsoft jumped the gun a bit here.

Let me frame this another way.

If a new search startup came about (let’s call them Brick) and Brick was able to index YouTube and the rest of the web better than anyone else — would this constitute anti-competitive behavior? Hardly. So the real problem is not that Google may have better algorithms that Microsoft’s Bing, but that they must — because they own YouTube — be doing something that is anti-competitive to get better YouTube search results.

Which is exactly what Brad Smith, SVP and General Counsel for Microsoft, is saying:

>First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube—and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

>Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.

Interesting, but how do you prove it? Seems to me that all Google needs to show to regulators is that they simply came up with a better search tool than Microsoft did and that they are not actively doing anything to block Microsoft.

If I was Google I would say to regulators that YouTube searching only makes up X percent of overall web searches and thus Google clearly does not have a monopoly on YouTube searches, they just have an advantage in it. I would essentially argue the market is too small to have an overall effect on Bing’s competition with Google. How many people really pick their search engines based on how well they search YouTube?

To the second point that Smith brings up you have to wonder what he is smoking. He is trying to show that because YouTube and Google are one in the same they have a better integration with the service **and** because Apple doesn’t offer a search engine — Apple too has better integration with YouTube. The way I read this though is that Google and Microsoft couldn’t come to terms with a YouTube integration agreement and now Microsoft is whining about it.

What I can’t help but wonder though is what Microsoft really hopes to gain from this.

Do they want Google fined? That would do very little to hamper Google. Do they want them broken up? I doubt that would do anything to help slow Google down — I mean they may just have to spin Android and YouTube back into separate companies — plus I don’t think the EU can make that call, I think it would have to be the US DOJ. So they must want to force a change in these practices right? What would that achieve though? Sure their YouTube search results would be better, as would the Windows Phone 7 YouTube app — but that isn’t the reason people aren’t using Bing, or buying Windows Phone 7 devices.

It would seem Microsoft doesn’t stand to gain much here. This just seems rather desperate.

### Jumping the Gun ###

I honestly think Microsoft jumped the gun here and potentially screwed users in the long run. Had Google been left alone for another couple of years (so they could really become a monopoly) I would bet there would be a far better case to be made against them — here in the U.S. That case would likely be able to pull in Google’s ISP dreams, Android, Chrome, Ads, and YouTube. It would lead to far more damaging rulings against Google than just bitching about YouTube access.

It’s not like Microsoft is grasping at straws to stay alive, yet they are acting like they are.

### Apple ###

What really blows me away though is that HP/Palm, Google, and Microsoft has yet to go after Apple for a monopoly with the iTunes Store and iPods. I mean you could claim that because they own that market and won’t allow other devices to sync with iTunes, that indeed the iPod/iOS has a monopoly with the iTunes Store and thus something needs to be done to allow Android/WebOS/Windows Phone 18/Others to sync with iTunes.

Just a thought…

Reader Nikolay Andreev emailed in this morning to shoot me a link to his post about organizing your iPhone homescreen — he also asked if I would share my tips. After taking a look at his post I thought I would share my thoughts on how to organize and arrange your homescreen icons for any iOS device.

Andreev’s method is to put every app in a folder — every one. [Hit this link](http://lantinian.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-iphone-homescreen-layout.html) to see how he does it. He likes the way it looks and I like that it keeps you to only one homescreen (for most non-app-crazy users). What I don’t like is how it works in practice and how it looks, to me it looks like walking into a room full of bins that house all your goods — I hate bins.

At least I hate *seeing* bins, I don’t mind them when they are neatly stored out of sight.

Anything that is on my homescreen is there because I want to get access to it and I really don’t want to have to open a folder to get to those icons. That is just too many taps and about 6 months ago I purged all folders from my homescreen for this very reason.

### My Homescreen Organization Method ###

I keep only three screens on my iPhone/iPad at all times. There is a very logical order to everything:

– **Screen 1** contains only the most used apps, never any folders.
– **Screen 2** contains a couple of apps that don’t fit on screen one and everything else in folders.
– **Screen 3** contains apps that I am testing or just downloaded (meaning I am unsure how long they will be on my device for).
– **iOS Dock** contains apps that I want to be able to access immediately, no matter which screen I am viewing.

I don’t stop there with the organization though, I also have a hierarchy for how and where the app is positioned on the screen.

### Positioning on iPhone ###

I break down my positioning by usage of the app (that is the most used apps go in the most optimum positions). I have determined that since I hold my iPhone with both my left and right hand equally (I am left handed and I use my iPhone more with my right hand). That means that the most premium positions are the four corners of the screen, then the next premium spots are the three icons that move vertically down the left and right sides (between the corner icons), then the two at the top and bottom in the middle positions. That leaves six icons in the middle that are of 4th priority. Here’s how this looks visually:

What you see here is the visual representation of how I view the app layout in some really hideous colors. I have further broken it down with numbers where I put the most important app in position #1 and then go down from there. The only exception is the dock apps — which are important, but they must also be apps that often need to be quickly accessed.

The end result of all this is a homescreen that looks like this:

All of the dock items are items that I need to access frequently when I unlock my phone. Dialvetica and Messages are the next most frequently used apps and then follow the hierarchy on down. For the curious among you, here is the other two screens that I use — both follow the same general logic:

### Positioning on iPad ###

On the iPad I still follow the same general order as I do on the iPhone, but I make one huge change that makes all the difference to me. You see the iPad homescreen rotates, offering a new level of complexity to the entire arrangement. I arrange my homescreen based on how I am likely to use the device given the orientation it is in. That is, I read in portrait, not landscape view — so I make sure reading apps are in premium spots when held in portrait — likewise for writing apps in landscape. This of course is quite confusing and often leads to an odd layout, best just to show you what I mean. (You can click the images to see a larger version.)

Portrait:

[](https://f3a98a5aca88d28ed629-2f664c0697d743fb9a738111ab4002bd.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/ipad-homescreen-portrait.jpg)

What is most important here is that my ‘reading’ apps: iBooks, Kindle and Instapaper are all along the right edge — as I know I tend to read while holding with my left hand.

Landscape:

[](https://f3a98a5aca88d28ed629-2f664c0697d743fb9a738111ab4002bd.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/ipad-homescreen.jpg)

Here I move the writing apps (iA Writer and Simplenote) to the left edge as they are more frequently used in this orientation.

As before I am simply trying to get the most used apps to the edges, but because the screen rotates I decided to further prioritize based on how I use the device when holding in landscape or portrait.

For the curious here are the other two pages I have on the iPad:

[](https://f3a98a5aca88d28ed629-2f664c0697d743fb9a738111ab4002bd.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/ipad-page-2.jpg)

[](https://f3a98a5aca88d28ed629-2f664c0697d743fb9a738111ab4002bd.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/ipad-page-3.jpg)

I hope this at least helps someone who is just as *nerdy* as I am.

Have you noticed how absolutely stupid some iOS app names are? I really mean this — just calling your app “InstaX” doesn’t mean it is as good or as cool as the original. ((Which would be Instapaper.)) When I am browsing the App Store you have two chances to catch my attention:

1. With your icon.
2. With your app name.

If I can’t decipher what your app does from one of those two (or both), then you need to be:

– Featured on Daring Fireball, or;
– immensely popular.

Just take a look at some of the apps that you have on your iOS device and ask yourself: “If I didn’t already know what this app did — is it self-evident from the icon and name?”

Chances are that it isn’t and some of the time this isn’t the developers fault. Perhaps the name is too long to fit, or the name is already taken by another developer. Then developers need to get creative, but they should never get so *creative* that potential new users can’t figure out what in the hell your app does.

Let’s look at some examples. ((I know this is what you were waiting for, and all the apps I am about to name are ones that I use and love — I just happen to think the names are poor choices. Then again, I don’t have an app so can I even really talk about this? I think yes, because after all I am a customer and ultimately what I, or any other customer thinks matters. I vote with my wallet.))

### Bad iOS App Names from Apps I Love and Use ###

First up has to be [Calvetica](http://calvetica.com/) which is a great little calendar replacement app for the iPhone. I absolutely love this app and can’t imagine going back to the built in app, but even at that, the name and icon are pretty poor choices.

Here is the Calvetica icon:

Take a look at that icon — if I hadn’t told you what the icon was for, would you know what the app does? I look at that icon and it tells me two things:

1. I can seemingly add something with it (the plus sign).
2. The app must be very simple in design using light grays and red.

Truly the icon sells the fact that design and minimalism seem to matter in the app. That’s all I get out of it and perhaps that’s all I need given the name:

#### Calvetica ####

In looking at the name and the icon together I only get one clarification: the app must use the typeface Helvetica, because that is clearly what the name is playing off of for the ‘vetica’ portion. Let’s look at the first part though: the ‘Cal’. If this app was just called ‘Cal’ put with an icon that has a giant plus sign on it — what would you think that app does? Personally I would think it is a calculator app, actually the full name and icon very much make it seem like a lovely swiss designed calculator app for my iPhone. I would still buy it it because hey a nice calculator app is always handy, but this isn’t about calculators — it is about calendars. Given that both the icon and the app name don’t seem to be that self-evident.

Moving along let’s look at another app: [Foursquare](http://foursquare.com/devices/iphone). Again let’s take a look at Foursquare’s icon first:

All that icon tells me is that it is either a game or a check-list app. It’s a blue blob with a purple golf ball and a check mark — I am not sure what else you could get out of that icon (assuming you don’t already know about the service) ((Even if you do know about the service there is a fair bet that you have only heard the name and still don’t know what it is all about.)) . So let’s look at the name:

#### Foursquare ####

Oh I know foursquare, it’s a game I played in elementary school during recess — clearly this is an iOS game where I bounce a rubber ball around against the computer — neat. Except we all know that’s not what the app does, it checks you into different locations and declares you the Mayor of random places. Yet, the only part of the name and icon that even vaguely resembles that fact is the check mark — which again is more closely associated with to-do lists and not check-ins.

This, I think, is a major problem with many iOS apps that aren’t games — you see this repeated over and over. If you are not a game you might consider being a little more explanative in your icons and naming conventions.

### An App Name That Is Saved by the Icon ###

Just like above, this is an app that I use and love. What makes this app different is that even though it has a poor name, the icon saves its bacon.

The app is [Instagram](http://instagr.am/), which has a name that really doesn’t mean a whole ton to those unfamiliar with the app. Insta + Gram — sounds more like a telegram or one of those little singing teddy-grams, than it sounds like a social Polaroid app. In fact if I had to guess based off the name alone I might guess that it is another group messaging app.

Take a look at the icon though:

Now you know this is one of one-million photo apps in the iTunes store. Pair that icon with the name ‘Instagram’ and you now get the sense that this app is about quick photos of some sort — which in truth is a pretty accurate description. The icon in this case aves the mediocre name. This is a fine solution as you rarely ever see the name standing alone in the app store — so the fact that the larger attribute (the icon) is easily descriptive of the app means that potential customers are more likely to be drawn into the app description page.

Runner-up: **[Soulver](http://www.acqualia.com/soulver/)**.

### An App Whose Icon Is Saved by a Name ###

Now we need to pick on [Simplenote](http://simplenoteapp.com/) — an app and service that I really love. ((And that I pay for.)) Unfortunately looking at this icon tells you nothing about the app:

What about this icon tells you what the app does, or even what the app could be called? Nothing, really. But, the name: “Simplenote” is damned descriptive and tells you exactly what the app is about: taking simple notes. That is pretty strong and even with the weak icon any person in the market for a note taking app should understand what this app is all about just from the name.

Coupling the name and the icon together give the the clean, minimalist note taking feel that is actually a fair representation of the app itself. Unlike in the last scenario though, the strong name may not be enough to combat a user glossing over the app as they look for stronger icons. ((Note: There has been a long and troubled history with Simplenote and its icon choices. I don’t want to reopen that debate, I don’t hate the current icon, but I am also not sure it is the best icon to help grow the user base.))

### Apps That Have Descriptive and Clever Icons and Names ###

Now we get to those apps that have both excellently chosen icons and excellently chosen names. I have two, non-Apple, examples to bring up — the first is [Delivery Status Touch](http://junecloud.com/software/iphone/delivery-status-touch.html).

Of course that is not the name that is displayed on your homescreen, the much more succinct “Deliveries” name is used. Couple that with this icon:

Now coupling that icon of a brown box with a shipping label on it, with the name Deliveries and you get a pretty decent idea of what this app does: updating you on the status of deliveries. OK maybe not that clear, but you do get the idea that this app is all about shipping and receiving — which is pretty good for one word and a small icon that actually contains a fair bit of detail in it.

Another great example is [Pastebot](http://tapbots.com/software/pastebot/), where you have a name that means something to computer users in “Paste” and the expectation of something being automated with the use of the word “bot”. Add to that this icon:

Seeing that icon I can immediately see it is a clipboard and putting two and two together I now know it has something to do with automating the pasting of your clipboard. Interestingly, I still don’t know what the app does exactly (allowing you to paste items from your Mac’s clipboard in iOS), but then how the heck do you convey that utility with one word and one icon?

Both of these apps do a great job of combining short descriptive names with pleasingly well designed app icons to convey a general understanding of their apps to non-users.

### Sales versus Clever ###

In looking at tons of app icons and app names it seems to be evident to me that iOS developers are attempting one of two things most of the time:

1. Developers are going for sales numbers with straight forward and obvious naming and icon conventions. Weather apps are most prone to this, but other apps like Twitter clients are also guilty. This is not necessarily a bad thing — it is just a ‘thing’.
2. Developers are going for a very clever name — clarity be damned. This is what happens when you start adding “Insta” to everything, or when you start making abstract art your icon. This is far more trendy among developers targeting early adopters.

I am not saying one is right and the other wrong, but there is an important distinction and very few apps that hit the nail on the head with both a marketable icon and name while still being a clever name. I think both Delivery Status Touch and Pastebot bridged that gap, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they have instant success.

### An Aside on Clever Names ###

Perhaps the most clever app name in the entire app store is Garrett Murray’s aptly named: [Ego](http://ego-app.com/). You see Ego is the name of his app that tracks your popularity stats (Mint, Google Analytics, Twitter followers, Vimeo Plays and so on). Ego is an app that helps to either feed your ego (if you are popular) or deflate your ego, if, well you get the picture.

Ego isn’t an app that if you come across it in the app store you would immediately know what it was — either by its icon or its name. It is though perhaps the most clever name I have seen in the app store, because anybody who knows what it is — gets the name and usually finds the humor in the name.

### What I Mean To Say ###

What I really spent all this time talking about is the absurd names and icons that developers are using. Should an iPhone user really have to get used to the fact that the name and icon of their new calendar app is best suited for calculator app, or should they immediately know what’s what? I for one have never been confused by the name of the official Twitter app, nor have I been confused by the icon. I do need to get used to many other apps and their icons and that just seems silly to me — it seems a bit lazy on the developers part.

If I decide that I want to switch my current calculator app for another on my homescreen shouldn’t the icon be recognizable as a calculator app — thus keeping me from having to read the small Helvetica type? I think so.