Recent Articles

Digitol:

>With iOS 6, you can choose to limit (though not entirely disable) ad tracking, by digging deep into settings. Go to Settings > General > About, then scroll down to the bottom and top on Advertising, then toggle Limit Ad Tracking to On.

I’m glad to see this, but even the learn more link doesn’t give you a good idea of when you are and aren’t going to be tracked. Wouldn’t it be something if Apple added an indicator in the status bar, like the location services one, that would tell you when your data is being sent to an ad server? You could then, like in the locations services preference, decide which apps could send that data, wouldn’t that be great?

Never going to happen, but interesting toggle by Apple, I just wish it was limited from the outset.

There’s two ways to interpret the quotes being tossed around from Schmidt: as Google giving up on iOS, or Google dragging their feet. Here’s the quote from Bloomberg’s Teo Chian Wei:

>“We haven’t done anything yet with Google Maps,” Schmidt told reporters in Tokyo today. Apple would “have to approve it. It’s their choice,” Schmidt said, declining to say if the Mountain View, California-based company submitted an application to Apple for sale through its App Store.

I read this as Schmidt saying that they don’t have a standalone app right now, and when they do it will be up to Apple to approve it — meaning he’s not sure if they will (they will). However many are sure to read this as Schmidt saying that Apple is holding the app — I doubt this is the case.

The Google-hater in me reads this as: “We haven’t made the app yet, wait, I mean it’s all up to Apple whether they would approve such an app. Did I say to much Larry, or was that sufficiently vague?”

Kontra:
>One of the key reasons why Google has better data than Apple is the fact that for many years users of Google Maps have been sending corrections to Google, which has improved its accuracy significantly. So by not submitting Google Maps to the App Store, Google would not only give up a very significant portion of its mobile revenue, but more importantly, it would self-induce a debilitating data-blindness on the world’s most lucrative mobile ecosystem.

That’s a great point, and [Apple provided that feedback mechanism right in Maps on iOS](http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/24/how-to-report-a-problem-with-ios-6-maps-data/). A larger point about this mapping kerfuffle for Google is that Google simply cannot stand to be complacent here. By not introducing a Google Maps app ASAP, Google is giving iOS users a taste at a different mapping platform and the risk is that users might like Apple Maps **and** that Apple Maps may get so good so fast from user feedback, that Google’s offering would be rendered irrelevant.

A good friend of mine, and long time Android user, called me Saturday telling me he was probably going to get an iPhone 5. I was shocked, but encouraged him to do so. He managed to find one from Radio Shack, purchased it and set it up. He’s a smart guy, but he does rely on friend-tech-support often yet there’s one thing he said to me that I think is pretty telling, given the fact he is a first time iOS owner: “I downloaded some apps already, like YouTube because apparently that doesn’t come on the phone, but it’s free, so I got that.”

In his mind downloading a YouTube app (which Apple removed from iOS 6) was basic — it was essential to using *his* phone. Yet there’s no Google Maps — he may not even know that Maps is not Google Maps — he likely doesn’t care either. However, if Google had Google Maps in the App Store when he found the YouTube app, I have no doubt he would have instantly downloaded it — that’s what everyone uses on their computers after all.

What if in another month Google launches the Google Maps app, will my buddy still deem that a no-brainer download at that point, or will he wonder why he would need *another* Maps application?

Anthony Drendel, a resident of China, reporting on the improvements that iOS 6 maps bring for those — oh — 1.3+ *billion* people living in China:
>Apple has chosen AutoNavi to provide map services within China. That was a smart move, because AutoNavi is a local Chinese company that provides very detailed maps of China. Google was never going to be able to map China as well as it has other parts of the globe because the Chinese government doesn’t trust the motives foreign companies—and it especially doesn’t trust Google.

Interesting because it sounds to me like, internationally, it is a really mixed bag. I am hearing that England and France got worse, now China is better. In the U.S., from what I have seen is visual oddities and slightly inaccurate placement of businesses. However, there *are* more local businesses in my testing, especially outside of big cities.

Either way, let’s say Apple gets maps on par with Google results in 18 months (I’d say 6 months if I were betting money), and keeps improving in huge markets like China — that’s nothing but pure profit for Apple because now they are giving Chinese people a real reason to choose (official) Apple devices over other devices. That could be huge.

**Update:** Or maybe this isn’t new, [Michael DeGusta](https://alpha.app.net/degusta/post/527393):

>@benbrooks I mentioned this on Twitter, but Mr. Drendel is completely wrong about China maps. iOS 5 / Google use AutoNavi as well, iOS 6 just shows more of the places at a wider zoom. (Meanwhile, ~225 cities in China lost transit & traffic seems reduced)

James Duncan Davidson:

>Mikey’s post went to point out the this was defined in the Title 47, Part 27, Subpart B, Section 27.16 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In a nutshell, for devices that operate in the 700 MHz C block—which Verizon paid $9.4 billion dollars in 2008 for a license to use—the following paragraph applies:

That paragraph basically states that by using the LTE spectrum Verizon does, they can’t lock the phone. This is amazing, and a huge Verizon advantage. I’m so pumped about this.

This is awesome. From Jeff Benjamin:

>I did reach out to Verizon via phone, and they confirmed to me that the phone was unlocked, and that I could use it with another SIM, even though I’m under contract, and just signed on as a customer today. That’s great news for travelers, and a big win for customers. Let’s just hope things stay this way.

I held off posting about this yesterday, but now it seems this is intentional and won’t be changed. This is how it should be, way to go Verizon, glad I switched now.

Well, changes are afoot at Kickstarter — and they are good changes, [not what I wanted](https://brooksreview.net/2012/09/ks-conundrum/), but a decent compromise. Kickstarter is now forcing project creators to assess the risk and challenges facing their products. Additionally hardware campaigns have additional rules:

1. No simulations, meaning you can’t show what the product *could* do, only what it can do as it currently exists.
2. No renderings, only photos of actual prototypes.
3. No multiple quantity rewards.

The first is great. The last is something I had never thought of before, and the psychological impact of such a reward level is misleading, good on Kickstarter for changing that.

It’s the second change, the “no renderings” that I find most curious. With that I would guess that two things happen:

1. Project creators are forced to make prototypes, thus sinking in cash before the campaign and discovering if their idea is feasible.
2. It’s a lot harder to get people to back projects.

Both go hand in hand. There will be many people that can’t fully prototype without funding, I would guess these projects rarely succeed now. Secondly, it’s also my guess that the projects that do get a good prototype are faster to ship.

All in all, these are great changes — I look forward to backing Kickstarter projects again to see what these changes mean in real world testing.

*(Lastly, don’t these all these read like this: “Don’t be Nokia, just be Apple.”)*

This is an interesting move. Wal-Mart and Target have both decided that Amazon is a big enough retail threat that they do not want to empower them by selling Kindles in their stores. What’s funny is that I think this is the wrong competitive move — I get why they think it is right, but I think they made the wrong call.

Aside from anything Apple sells, I think the Kindle line takes second place on the most desirable gadget list. Both because non-Apple fans want them, and because they better fit a parents budget than Apple gear. Either way, let’s just say holiday demand for Kindles is real, and very large.

If we accept that as fact, then it naturally follows that many will need and want to buy the devices. Where do they go? They can’t go to Wal-Mart, or Target — guess they go to Amazon.com — oh and while they are on Amazon.com, why not conveniently tick-off a few other gifts and save the trip to the store. “What’s this Prime thing? Of free movies and free shipping? That will save me some money this holiday season, purchased.”

You see what will happen? We just made a loyal Amazon customer.

Instead of selling your competitors low-margin devices, and then selling *your* customer some other holiday goodies — you just sent your customer directly to your competitor and showed them how much less crowded online shopping is.

This only works if the Kindles are actually coveted — and I think they are — otherwise people would just buy whatever else Target has. So my best guess is that Wal-Mart and Target think they can get away with this by directing people to equivalent devices — let’s see how that works out for them.