Apple

Computing.Next: Google IO and WWDC

2

I’ve refrained from posting my thoughts on Google IO, which took place last month, because I felt it would be better to wait and see what came out of Apple WWDC. The two companies have been fierce competitors in the past and my bet was that this year would further strengthen the competition. Well, the WWDC keynote wrapped up this week and sure enough–Apple’s production brought some very interesting new products and services to the table that seek to challenge Google’s counterparts.

Desktop OS

I won’t say much regarding the traditional desktop-class OS market. Apple has OS X Lion hitting digital shelves in July while Google Chromebooks are shipping right about now. Yes, they’re competitors, but Google’s cloud OS is such a new player in the market it’s unclear how it might affect Windows and OS X. Chrome could take off for consumer and enterprise users that don’t currently need access to traditional applications like Photoshop, AutoCAD, standalone collaboration tools, and so on. For now though, OS X and Windows will continue to hold their place in the market.

Mobile

Next up is the mobile device space. On one side you’ve got iOS. On the other: Android. This “battle” is a bit less exciting this year than it has been in years past because both platforms are near parity. Features on one generally match features on the other, and both have proven to be quite usable for just about any type of user. Notably absent from this year’s WWDC keynote were snarky remarks about Android from Steve Jobs. It’s doubtful that he’s gotten over his grudge against Android; however, Steve demonstrated that copying features straight out of other systems was no problem! New iOS notifications are practically a direct copy from Android, while iMessages takes quite a few queues from Blackberry Messenger.

An age-old issue is that of copying features from one OS to another. Apple and Microsoft copied from Xerox, after all. So, while Android fans are making fun of iOS playing catch-up, Android has been required to do some of the same in times past.

One issue I must take with iOS 5 is that of iMessages. Apple has created yet another proprietary messaging platform. While this is not terribly surprising–Apple has a sordid history of building their own proprietary systems when excellent open protocols were available–it’s pretty disturbing. In addition to iMessages, we previously had proprietary services like Blackberry Messenger, Kik, LiveProfile, Beluga, and several others. That’s in addition to old standbys AIM and MSN Messenger. But what I really would’ve liked to see is Apple integrating directly into the existing open messaging protocols like Google Talk and Facebook Chat. Both of those are based on something called XMPP and are insanely powerful for text, rich media, audio, and video.

I’m sure Apple made this decision because they are more interested in consumer lock-in and bringing as many users as possible to their platform than they are at furthering innovation and the industry at large. While corporations certainly have the right to make money and the responsibility to be good stewards to their stockholders, proprietary technologies are not required to do so. Google and IBM are prime examples of companies that make tons of money by using and supporting open source. Apple made the wrong call here and will hurt the industry as a whole if this catches on.

All that said, I am 100% ready to kill off expensive text messaging plans and move to data-driven messaging. But I want that to happen via open protocols used across any device on any carrier. This is the age of the Internet, after all.

Cloud

The main area I want to focus on is that of Internet-based products and services.

Google has been a huge provider of these services for some time now and continues to expand its offerings. Web apps such as: Gmail, Calendar, Books, Picasa Web, Talk, Voice, and the recently released Music service are notable in their lineup. Many other lesser known services are also available that integrate directly into Search. All in all, Google is almost 100% “cloud-based.” They tend to only offer native app solutions when it supplements an existing web offering, a la Android and Chrome OS.

Apple, on the other hand, has traditionally focused more on native solutions than web. Their first foray into the web space came as MobileMe (and its individual ancestors), but most people (Jobs included) would agree that it failed in quite a few areas. iCloud is Apple’s complete rewrite of the platform and huge tie-in to existing iProducts and infrastructure. It features things like data backup from Apple’s mobile products, wireless syncing for documents/photos/books, mail, calendar, music, and photos.

On the surface, Apple’s offerings have become almost identical to Google’s. They both provide multi-device syncing, backup, productivity apps, and more. Both store your a copy of your data in the cloud. But there is one extremely huge difference. With Google services, everything can be accessed from a web browser practically anywhere in the world. Just hit the Google app URL of your choice, log-in with your username and password, and access your stuff. It’s easy and ubiquitous. In many cases these web services are supplemented with a mobile app on Android (and often on iOS as well). This is especially relevant with Gmail, Music, Docs, and Talk.

iCloud still stores all of your data in the cloud, but at present, you can’t get to it with a web browser. (Perhaps email and calendar are an exception, but it’s unclear from Apple’s website.) Instead, you’ll need an iPhone, iPad, or Mac in order to access most of your data. Photos are also available to Windows machines. But you won’t just need an Apple device. You’ll need your Apple device. iCloud is designed to pair with a specific device and connect it to your cloud account. But if your battery is dead or you’ve left something at home, it sounds like you’ll be stuck. Good luck getting that Excel document for the big meeting. Your cloud extends only as far as your battery. This seems like a huge downside to a set of services that otherwise has a lot of value. Within the next decade, web apps will become as powerful if not more so than native apps. Apple will have to evolve their offerings to keep up. Google has some shortcomings when it comes to things like editing documents, but they’re way ahead on the web front. iCloud does have some public APIs, so we’ll see what 3rd party developers can do with those.

Another significant difference between the competitors lies in the music services. Google is currently unable to sell music and match existing downloaded and ripped songs to a huge online library, so full uploads of your music is required. This usually doesn’t take weeks as Apple claims, but it can take a significant amount of time–certainly a few days–to get a large library uploaded. The upload process also slows down other Internet-based activities due to limited upload bandwidth.

On the upside though, once the music is loaded, any modern web browser can stream it from any machine. It’s literally music on the go from anywhere. The Android mobile app also supports this stream-anywhere philosophy and is available on any Android 2.2+ device. In addition to streaming, songs can be downloaded to the device as desired.

iTunes on iCloud works a bit differently. Initial setup is faster since you’ll have immediate access to iTunes-purchased music past and present. For a nominal yearly fee, you can quickly match all ripped music to anything in the master iTunes library. Anything that can’t be found there is uploaded the manual way just like Google. The music is available on up to ten devices.

That’s where the fun stops, though. First, users are still required to use iTunes (whether on desktop or mobile) to purchase music. There’s no web interface. This means that Apple failed to address the glaring issue of iTunes being incredibly bloated. I run across more and more users each day that are looking for a way out of the garden. Unless you’ve got a high-end machine, iTunes will be a pain in your side and Apple just expects you to deal with it. It runs far worse on Windows than Macs to boot.

The other issue relates to music storage. While you can download anything you’ve purchased or uploaded as many times as desired, the fact remains that the music must still be stored on a device. There’s no streaming whatsoever, so downloads are required. If a device’s space gets low, you’ll have to manually delete content in order to make room for new songs. Additionally, unless you keep your entire music library downloaded to every iDevice you own, there’s no guarantee that songs from one will be on the other. A manual search and download will be required. If you’ve got a lot of music, this could prove unwieldy. In the music store arena, Apple obviously has the lead, but in the convenience and tech department of the actual service…Google takes the cake.

One final caveat related to the iTunes cloud service is that their privacy policy states that they’ll willingly hand over information regarding your iTunes Match data to record labels if threatened with a lawsuit. In so many cases its going to be hard to determine if certain music files are legit or not. Nobody keeps all of their receipts, people lose original discs, and yes of course, there are pirates out there too. But what’s going to stop legitimate users from getting sued by RIAA and the like? I suspect TechDirt may have some insights here, but it’s a little disturbing to say the least.

All-in-all, I think parts of iCloud will be a very hard sell to users. Yes, everyone will benefit from app and data backups, OTA updates, and so on, but many users are already tied in to existing 3rd party services like Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, and so on. The ubiquity of those services (read: doesn’t require an Apple product in hand) makes them extremely lucrative. Switching to iCloud might not be worth the trouble–easy or not. Also, while details are still forthcoming, I wonder if certain data can be excluded from the cloud sync. Some documents, photos, and so on might not be appropriate for global cloud transference…especially to a family Apple TV or some such. Privacy conscious users may also balk at just shoving everything into the cloud. What security, integrity, and such are provided or guaranteed for uploaded data?? And finally, with capped data plans in vogue and no clear way of switching away from iCloud if desired, Apple will need to provide tools in order to track data usage and export content into industry-supported formats. Something they might not be willing to do.

Apple definitely has provided a huge upgrade from the MobileMe of the past few years, but it remains to be seen if they’ve really hit something good yet. It’ll be hard to beat Google at it’s own game. And with Google releasing the next major Android version this Winter, it may bring to significant upgrades and UI adjustments that trump iOS 5 in some important ways. It remains to be seen what’s up their sleeve. There’s even room for a Google Music refresh, so don’t count the music store out yet.

At any rate, the Google/Apple competition is definitely turning out to be a fierce one. The remainder of 2011 promises to be quite interesting indeed.

No, the iPad won't cook your breakfast!

1

There are people in this world who tend to get hostile whenever I talk about an Apple product in a negative way. They call it “Apple Bashing.” Apparently they haven’t yet realized that I’m entitled to my own opinion and to make that opinion public. In fact, they are entitled to the exact same thing. Wow, who’d have thought?? So let me say this before you close the tab and turn me off: if you’re willing to read an article about how great the iPad is will be or how it has changed will change the world, you should be willing to take 5 minutes of your ever-so-busy life to read the following. You never know what you might be missing…

Anyway, I keep reading tweets, comments, news articles, blogs, and the like talking about how Apple’s iPad will be a revolutionary device. How it will open dead people’s minds to the idea of computing and make your grandparents computer programming prodigies. Okay, so that’s an exaggeration, but you can’t argue the fact that every time you turn around, someone is explaining why the iPad will revolutionize, reincarnate, revitalize, or generally reinvent certain industries. And, unfortunately, I have to ask: are you kidding me?? I mean, seriously! Let’s think this through…

Statement #1: The iPad will revolutionize photography.
Okay, right. Now, how is this going to happen again? The iPad lacks a camera. The iPad lacks photo editing or manipulation software. The iPad lacks a file system. The iPad lacks a high-resolution screen. In fact, the only thing the iPad does that has any connection to pictures, is that it can display the ones you sync from iTunes. So, what that means my friends, is that in order to put pictures on your iPad, you have too import them into iTunes and then sync them to your device. (Oh, I suppose you could email them to yourself as well, but that’s just slow and convoluted.) So, you’re telling me that this “yet to be approved by the FCC” Apple device is going to revolutionize photography. Well, you let me know when that happens. I have a feeling we’ll all be waiting awhile…

Statement #2: The iPad will revolutionize ebooks.
Okay, seriously–hold it right there! All you people who keep saying this just need to stop! Take a deep breath and look at the ebook market. Who do you see? Yup, that’s right. Amazon. The so-called revolution of ebooks has already happened, and trust me–it wasn’t started by Amazon either. In fact, I’d say we can trace this at least to the era of PalmOS-based PDAs. Suddenly, 3rd party developers were able to build apps that could read brand-new ebook formats. I read many ebooks back in the day via that method. In fact, half the time, I’d just send .txt files to my Palm and then open them in a reader that supported plain-text formats. Worked fine.

The Palm era of ebooks really wasn’t something that the masses could appreciate. Most average consumers didn’t have PDAs and the few who did probably weren’t interested in reading books on them. So, that’s why I ultimately look to Amazon and it’s incredibly popular Kindle device as the true ebook revolutionaries. Do you not remember the day the Kindle was first released? I mean, at first, most people were asking “what in the world is that!?” which was then followed by everyone and their mother buying one. In fact, Amazon sold out of Kindles nearly immediately, they were so popular. To me, that says “wow.” It says “I’m a revolutionary.” And ultimately means that Apple, in this case, is just a copycat. Face it, people. The only thing the iPad brings to ebooks is multi-touch. And I honestly can’t remember the last time I had the slightest urge to multi-touch my ebook…

Statement #3: The iPad will revolutionize digital media.
Sigh! Please not this again. If all reports were to be believed, the digital media industry has been revolutionized about 3 billion times by now. Don’t believe me? Well consider these: VHS, DVD, flat-screen monitors, flat-panel TVs, Bluray, iPods, HD radio, and now…the iPad? Yeah, I really don’t think the iPad fits in that list. Yes, the iPod does because it really did kickstart digital music, even if iTunes has been nothing but a pain in the neck. The iPad is not going to be nearly as “revolutionary.” Not even a small chance. None. ZERO. That’s partially because it lacks an open ecosystem coupled with it’s lack of support for industry standard file formats already in use by every other media device on the planet.

I’m not saying the iPad is going to be terrible, although I certainly do have a strong opinion regarding its success. All I’m saying, is that Apple’s marketing slogan, reading “our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device…” is just that. Marketing jargon. There isn’t a shred of truth to it, guaranteed.

And no matter what anyone else tells you, it will most certainly not cook your breakfast…

Apple's Servers Overloaded after Event

0

Folks trying to download iTunes 9 or any of Apple’s other newly released software today will find downloads either slow or unavailable as servers are hammered. This is a result of the 09.09.09 Apple event during which iTunes 9 was announced.

An end to the Apple App Store

0

The company Apple, lauded and applauded for it’s innovative devices and software has hit some bumps in the road as of late. Continued controversy surrounding it’s methods for approving and (seemingly more often than not) denying apps from showing up in its iTunes Store has brought new decisions to light over the past several weeks. It seems that Apple can (and will) readily deny any app from showing up in the store for any reason. This could be something from not liking the look and feel of the application to rejecting it simply because it competes with an existing Apple-created app. This is the very definition of a company that has become involved in anti-competitive practices.

Yet, while I can’t necessarily comment on the legality of Apple’s operation, I will say this: every time I read an article about yet another app-rejection from the iTunes Store, it reminds me of a communist/fascist 2nd world government. Certainly it doesn’t align with the capitalistic system of business we strive for within the United States.

The Apple App store needs some drastic changes. I’m fine with them taking a cut of each app’s sales. They built a good infrastructure for app distribution and they deserve to profit from their efforts. I also believe that it’s okay for Apple to charge developers a fee for access to the SDK; however, I believe this should be a one-time fee. Not yearly as is the current policy. From there, they need to abolish the entire app-review process entirely (other than perhaps scanning for viruses or truly malicious code) and allow any developer to publish any app to the store, for any price, at any completion level they choose. They say they’re worried about half-baked and bad applications cluttering the store, but honestly this is probably not too much of a concern. Customers will indubitably continue to rate and review apps they purchase and download, so good apps will rise to the top and bad ones will sink to the bottom. This is the way a capitalistic system works! It is the customer satisfaction that makes or breaks the company or product. Not a 3rd party who has no idea how useful or useless a product may be to any given customer.

Take two apps rejected just this week: Google Voice and Riverturn VoiceCentral–the former rejected because it supposedly competes with AT&T’s mobile service and the latter not approved because it allegedly “duplicates existing iPhone functionality.” The funny thing is, four months ago, Apple approved Riverturn’s app along with several updates in the interim only to pull the app from it’s app store this week after rejecting the Google Voice app. Additionally, customers are requesting refunds for purchased copies of VoiceCentral since it’s no longer available. That sort of thing could break the company’s bank especially since RiverTurn would have to foot the entire bill whilst Apple keeps their 30% profit margin. I can see the contentedly smug expressions on their faces already.

Ultimately, developers will leave Apple’s fold in droves if the current conditions and policies continue in effect. They’ll abandon Apple for other more friendly developers. Can anyone say the Palm Pre? Or what about the Android Marketplace?

The consumers and developers will decide the fate of Apple’s App Store. But the way things are going now–it’s just a matter of time…

Apple updates frustrate me

0

Just a minute ago, Apple Software Update popped up and asked me to update my Safari for Windows software from 4.0.1 to 4.0.2 to resolve some Javascript engine issues and fix a few security issues. A reasonable request since the browser version is pretty new. But what really got me was the fact that the update was a whopping 52MB!! I don’t understand this for several reasons.

First, comparable (read: better) browsers such as Firefox 3.5 and Internet Explorer 8 do not even come close to requiring a 52MB installer. The most recent version of Firefox is 10MB while IE 8 weighs in at a measly 25MB–less than half of Safari’s requirements. I’ve been equally miffed at iTunes and Quicktime which often require similarly sized updates–although I suppose I would expect those apps to carry a little more weight.

So, would someone care to explain the why behind these extravagantly large download sizes?

Go to Top