Darrell Etherington:
>In two years time, if not less, when you think “Mac,” you’ll think about the MacBook Air first and foremost.
I’d argue that it is already the “flagship” Mac and that by the end of this year it will be the computer that people think of as a Mac. Replacing the iMac, of course.
Caroline Graham in an interview with Bill Gates:
>I ask him whether this is it now – is Microsoft history to him, replaced in his heart by his philanthropy? He retired from the day-to-day running of Microsoft in 2008, with many believing it has since lost its edge to companies like Apple and Google.
>He says, ‘My full-time work for the rest of my life is this foundation.’
>Will he ever return to helm Microsoft?
>‘No. I’m part-time involved. But this is my job now.’
Horace Dediu on the expense of running the iTunes store and offerings:
>It implies over $1.3 billion per year.
Imagine how expensive it will be to run both iTunes and iCloud.
MG Siegler:
>Once you install an app with Twitter integration in iOS 5, you’ll see a single dialog box pop-up asking you if you’d like to connect the app to Twitter. This will look a lot like the pop-up that asks if you’d like an app to be able to use your location, Sarver said. Click, “OK” and you’re good to go. You’ll never be asked to enter a login/password or anything else. Nor will you see the pop-up box in that app ever again.
That is going to be huge.
I want to thank Hoban Cards for sponsoring this weeks RSS feed. Hoban Cards makes top-notch letterpress calling cards right here in Washington State. You get 100 of these bad ass cards for just $75 — ask anyone who has ever planned a wedding and they will tell you that you can’t touch letterpress samples for less than $50.
Hoban sent me over a box of calling cards to check out, and I can assure you: these things are excellent. There are six pre-made designs that you can plug your name and phone number/email into (I went with #6) — all of them look great.
Listen, first impressions mean everything and I can’t think of a better way to make a lasting first impression — well a lasting *good* first impression.
Stephen Chapman:
>Yes, you read that correctly. The current cost of a Promoted Trend for a day is a whopping $120,000.
Well out of reach for most small businesses, which also happen to make up the lions share of businesses in the U.S. This is the problem I have had with Twitter’s strategy all along, you want it to be cheap enough that app developers and, well anyone, can advertise with you. There are only so many Googles and Microsofts that can drop $120k for one day of advertising.
FOSS Patents:
>In its motion, Apple states explicitly that the sued app developers are “are individuals or small entities with far fewer resources than Apple and […] lack the technical information, ability, and incentive to adequately protect Apple’s rights under its license agreement.”
Good news for developers, now let’s hope Apple wins.
Chris Foresman:
>If for some reason you don’t already have some kind of WiFi router in your home, you can buy an AirPort Extreme, AirPort Express, or Time Capsule and configure it right from your iOS device.
I honestly didn’t know this existed, but that is awesome.
Chris De Jabet gets [it](https://brooksreview.net/2011/06/apple-mag-opus/):
>It became too difficult to maintain the illusion of these multiple devices working simply and with little maintenance. The digital hub became the digital burden.
Ed Oswald:
>[…] somewhat-tablet-centric Windows 8 operating system.
So damned accurate.
Dr. Drang makes a great point about what can happen when Apple moves into your territory (using the recent WWDC announcements and Instapaper as examples). His point is not that these apps have things to fear, but that they should fear Apple putting effort into these categories. If Apple puts a modicum of effort into the reading list offering then there most likely is reason to be concerned for services like Instapaper.
Great points.
Enticing:
>Discussing the intersection of simplicity and the creative process through conversation with the creative publishers and customers associated with the Fusion Ads network. Co-hosted by Chris Bowler and Shawn Blanc.
*Never* heard of these guys before ((That’s a lie.)) but they sound nice.
Craig Grannell solving a problem that I used to face daily with the Mac App Store:
>Then it struck me: I have a back-up hard-drive attached to the Mac, which is a clone taken by SuperDuper!, and, sure enough, the Mac App Store seemingly cannot tell the difference between the active volume and the back-up—at least in this case. And so if the Mac App Store tells you that you can’t install an app and you’re using cloning software, try temporarily unmounting the clone and see if that helps.
As Craig’s reader comments, this will also happen if any volume connected to the Mac has this application on it, whether or not it is properly placed in an ‘Applications’ folder. I constantly had this problem with Lion and Snow Leopard being on my machine in two different partitions. The solution I came up with is copying the app file manually so that it is on both — once that is done it works with no problems, odd.
Jordan Golson:
>Apple has quietly changed its guidelines on the pricing of In-App Subscriptions on the App Store. There are no longer any requirements that a subscription be the “same price or less than it is offered outside the app”. There are no longer any guidelines about price at all. Apple also removed the requirement that external subscriptions must be also offered as an in-app purchase.
This is actually a pretty big deal because it means:
1. Netflix can continue to operate as they are without adding a method of subscribing in-app.
2. If they wanted, a service could charge a premium to cover Apple’s 30% when selling things through the app store versus their online offering.
3. I am pretty sure this means that Amazon can keep the Kindle app the way it is — they may just need to remove the link to the online Kindle store from the app. Though I am not 100% on this just yet.
Big stuff and a welcome change I am sure, by both consumers and developers.
MG Siegler:
>But it’s the Google approach. It’s files, and uploading, and syncing. Some of it is automatic, some is not. It requires some thought. It sort of just works — as long as you know what you’re doing.
“Sort of just works” is the core of Google’s adoption problem with its “cloud” offerings. ((I use cloud in quotes because it is an entirely stupid marketing word. And though at times I may forget to use quotes, know that I always vomit a little in my mouth when I use the term.))
Nick Bilton makes the argument that the higher-quality, larger file size, iTunes Match MP3s was a move by Apple to sell larger capacity devices. Meaning that most users will be pushed towards a 32GB phone over a 16GB phone so that they can hold the same amount of music. I hadn’t thought about it in this way, but I think he is wrong.
I think most consumers *are* cheap asses.
Cheap asses tend to see spots where they can save money, and iTunes Match does just that, by allowing them to get all their music at anytime, from the cloud. Meaning you don’t need extra storage because you can swap out music on the fly at any time you want.
If the rumored streaming does come to the service then I think the argument is furthered that most consumers don’t need a larger capacity device. Personally, I decide storage size based not on what I want to keep on my device, but on how much I can *add* to the device through downloads, recording video and taking photos.
Parmy Olson:
>Why does that $25 matter? Because Apple is reportedly splitting that money with copyright holders, many of whom have lost out on potential revenue because so many are downloading songs from bittorrent sites like The Pirate Bay. Some say this means Apple is not only legitimizing pirated music, it’s monetizing it too. Needless to say, the folks at the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) which represents the recording industry worldwide, really like iTunes Match.
It’s a great point and likely how Apple was able to convince the music labels to be OK with this arrangement. I don’t get the arguments that she cites against the service. Sure this “locks” you into Apple’s clutches, but it’s not like you can’t leave or stop paying — you can you just lose out on lower quality stolen music. I also don’t get the irrational fear that Apple may one day not allow your stolen music — that seems like the risk you take when you steal.
I have been using Reeder as my primary RSS client since the first beta version became public. There is a lot to like and a lot of odd things about the app. It feels just like the iPad version — and that is not a bad thing.
I will say that the app itself *feels* better in Lion than it does in Snow Leopard — where in the latter it seems slightly out of place from a design standpoint and in the former it fits right in. MacStories has a [nice write-up](http://www.macstories.net/news/reeder-for-mac-now-available-on-the-mac-app-store/) about the app if you want more information.
The price: $9.99 — seems like a steal to me given all this app can do.
If you want a good chuckle watch the part where the councilwoman asks Jobs about getting free, Apple provided, WiFi in Cupertino. His response is excellent.