Finding tablet-oriented apps for Android is a hunt, a chore, and a grind.…

Things get even worse when you realize Google Play shows different apps on its website and on individual tablets; even though the Google Play website claims some apps run on an Asus Transformer Prime, the apps didn’t show up on Google Play on the Prime.

And just because an app claims to run on tablets doesn’t mean it was designed for tablets. Often, after you download an app you’ll discover that it’s ugly or nearly useless because it was designed for a 4-inch screen.

via The iPad Wins Because Android Tablet Apps Suck: An Illustrated Guide.

And on and on. This is why Android supporters claiming it’ll overtake Apple in tablets are nuts, dreamers, or wading chest deep into a river in Egypt.

The Android crowd is waiting for non-iPad competitors like the Amazon Kindle Fire or Barnes & Noble Nook to sell in enough quantities to claim “Android tablets” outsell iPads. Setting aside that the Kindle Fire is not even a real Android tablet, these color e-readers don’t compete against the iPad except maybe in the most superficial way. An iPad sale “lost” to one of these is something Apple wasn’t getting anyway.

Android fans will fool no one but themselves and the usual Apple bashing crowd. It’s there own private echo chamber they’re talking to.

Consider Apple’s move to place Project Gutenberg titles in the iBookstore. I’m surprised this didn’t get more play in the tech press. I wasn’t surprised Apple would allow “side-loaded” free ePub content to the iPad, but to place tens of thousands of such titles in the store itself for easy browsing and downloading is huge, and something Kindle doesn’t offer. 

Amazon has been sluggish. They’ve done nothing to incorporate Stanza’s free content into Kindle. Add to that the weak Kindle Mac beta just released (I expected at least parity with the iPhone version) and you see a company confused.

Look what Amazon has done since the iPad was announced: 

• Announced a 70-30 distribution deal (“just like Apple”), but to get that split the terms are harsh.
• Announced an SDK for the hardware Kindle. Really? This is a black and white eReader, they won’t turn it into a more general purpose computing device. It’d take more than a color screen and SDK for that.
• Threatened publishers who talked with, or considered going to, Apple. Great way to embrace your suppliers, guys. 

Just as revealing is what Amazon did not do when the iPad was announced:

• Announce a Kindle iPad app and how awesome it will be. Embrace Apple’s game-changing hardware, but note that Apple has zero presence in the eBook market, and that you’re the leader.
• Enhance significantly the book buying experience on the Kindle app. It’s a big weakness compared to Apple’s iBooks, and there’s no reason they can’t make it significantly better. 
• Stop acting like the iPad doesn’t matter. It’s a Kindle hardware killer for sure, and makes them look clueless when they don’t acknowledge what it can also do to their software. 

Here’s what Amazon should do for the Kindle app on Apple’s devices:

Amazon promises that the iPad version of the Kindle app it is working on will be cool, but it won’t be ready when the first Apple devices show up April 3. That’s because the e-commerce giant, like most other developers, hasn’t been able to test the app on a real device. And it’s going to wait until it can do so to finish the software.

They’re stupid not to deliver on April 3. With no Kindle App why not try Apple’s iBooks? Which is just what many will do.

It’s hard to believe they’re really waiting for the physical device to test with. Very few developers have the physical device yet there will be thousands of native iPad apps available on opening day. Besides, this is just an eReader, hard to believe the physical device will make that big a difference. Get the app in the store, and if the physical device makes a difference push an update out ASAP.

I think the real reason is that it’s simply not ready. Amazon dragged their feet since the iPad was announced. They’ve focused on agreements and posturing with content providers, an SDK for the Kindle, and pushing out a weak beta of Kindle for the Mac. All those things should have taken a back seat to the iPad.

Only thing left is for their late Kindle iPad app to kick ass. Early looks seem promising. If the buying experience isn’t significantly improved over the iPhone version, they blew it. Big time.

Designed specifically for the iPad,” the company said, “our new B&N eReader will give our customers access to more than one million eBooks, magazines and newspapers in the Barnes & Noble eBookstore

Very smart of B&N to do this; the sooner they get it released after iPad launch, the better.

Meanwhile, I’ve heard nothing from Amazon on their plans for the iPad. Do they have any? They seem to be too busy licking their wounds instead of modifying the Kindle app for the new device.

Hello, Amazon, say something. Do something. You should beef up Stanza while you’re at it. I want as many good eReaders on the iPad as possible and you control two of the most popular. I love the iPhone for book reading; the Pad could be that much better. Don’t blow this.

• Price.
• Ease of getting books.
• Usability.
• Customizability.

Price:

Stanza is free. There’s a boatload of Public Domain books out there (most of the classics) and they are free as well.

Ease of getting books:

Is downloading them right to your device easy enough for you? When you launch Stanza you get the Library screen below. (Note the item called ‘Sherlock Holmes’ is a category I made myself to place the entire works inside for easier access; just one of many ways to customize this app.) The ‘Online Catalog’ button takes you to numerous categories (type, author, etc.) of books available for download.

One of the categories listed in their catalog is ‘Most Popular’. Below is the first page of that category (there are ~200 titles listed):

Clicking on any title asks if you want to download it. Say yes, and that’s it. They download quickly (5-30 seconds on WiFi). Once downloaded the book opens in Stanza ready for reading.

Usability:

When reading a book, there’s a lot of personalization you can use to get the pages looking like you want them. Below is a screen shot of my page (the screenshot is weak, in person the text is sharper and the background not so dark):

Notice that the iPhone’s entire screen is dedicated to reading (i.e., even the “info bar” at the top of the iPhone is hidden). That’s just one of the multitude of user options. Believe me, if you hate my page you’ll be able to make yours completely different. You can flip the iPhone and read in landscape if you want, but I prefer to hold it in portrait. While in a book, just tap a page and menus appear at the top and bottom with a few common items, one of which is a Bookmark item that lets you move by chapter:

Other commands on the quick toolbars let you change font size, perform a search, delete the book, or get back to the Library page. When reading, you “turn” pages by either swiping left or right or tapping the left or right side of the screen. The latter can be turned off, and I did so because occasionally when changing positions I’d touch an edge and change the page. I like turning the pages by swiping; it feels natural to me. Further, you can have the page instantly change or use a slide effect. If the latter, you select how long the slide takes. I like the slide but set it to be a bit faster than the default. It now gives just the right amount of feedback on page turning.

Customizability:

As mentioned above, if you think my page sucks, make your own. Below is the settings page (found in the iPhone’s Settings section, not in the app itself):

Each one of the categories provides many options. For me, the default white page is a bit bright (computer screens always seem that way to me), so I picked more of an off-white color (the one I’m using is called Navajo White). I’m too lazy to count them all but you have ~150 color choices for your page. Don’t like my font? I’m using Georgia, but the two dozen or so fonts that come on the iPhone are all available. Knock yourself out. And fonts have the same color choices as pages. Font size? Just set a slider for your default, and you can easily adjust up and down within the app. But maybe you’re Mr. (or Ms.) particular, so setting font, size, and color is not enough for you. You also want justified text, with more leading and a bigger margin. Guess what? You can have all those. In fact, justified text is the default, but I prefer ragged right. There are even more ways to customize it, so you should go through all the settings to see what you like.

Other stuff:

For Mac users there’s a desktop application that allows transfer of files from your Mac to the iPhone. With so many freebies to download directly to the device I have not tried this. Since no connectivity is required after a book is downloaded, this makes the iPod touch a great reader as well. Download your favorites and read all you want when you’re not on WiFi. Oh, and what would a new app be without bugs? I’ve noticed sometimes the app will stop scrolling pages. It’s almost like it freezes, except I can exit the app via Home as usual (i.e., I do not have to force quit) and then open it again and it remembers where it left off. There were also a couple of times a book download times out, or I’ll choose a category and it tells me to try later. Is that the app, the iPhone, or my connection? I don’t know.

Conclusion:

When the Kindle came out there was a lot of talk about if it could replace the “book experience”. That is, the physical act of hefting the book, “curling up” with it, flipping through pages, etc. I don’t discount any of these, but I’ve come to believe part of why the Kindle has to compete with that is because it is the size of a book. Honestly, with the iPhone I never think about that. It’s smaller and lighter than any book, and the one-handed operation with a simple flick of the thumb to turn pages is so smooth and intuitive I was immersed in reading before I knew it. I think a big key is to use the option to hide the info bar. With the entire screen taken over, and using a color/font/design of your choice, it was easy for me to forget I was holding an electronic device that also takes calls, gets emails, etc. If you’re a reader, you owe it to yourself to try Stanza. Just download the thing and a couple of classics you’ve been meaning to read (no, you didn’t read them all in college and, besides, you’ll appreciate them more now) and give it a whirl.

• USA today’s original article, citing no other data than the “Big 4″ labels’ word for it.
• MacDailyNews’ take on the above article, particularly its lack of any hard data.
• The CEO of eMusic calling BS on the USA today article, and claiming that eMusic is #2

And then of course there are the myriad re-hashes of the USA Today article syndicated in papers everywhere, as well as other articles parroting the story as if iTunes is somehow being threatened.

First, there has always been a #2 in online music sales. Always. I mean, unless there’s only one store doing the selling, then someone is #2. Did we ever care about who it was before? Did it ever matter? No.

In fact, iTunes is so far in the lead that even referring to the next one as a ‘distant second’ is still an understatement. Like being the tallest midget, it’s a dubious distinction.

Second, I tend to agree with eMusic on their being #2. The big labels sure as hell don’t want to discuss Indie labels. They never have. So naturally they don’t bother considering eMusic, but who said the labels get to set the agenda (well, except for USA Today, who wrote the article for the labels’ benefit)?

Bottom line for me is that until some hard numbers on the Amazon store are published, eMusic’s claim, backed up with legitimate sales figures, will hold sway. Though, again, who is truly #2 ultimately doesn’t matter.

Third, I’ve written about this before, but the “collusion” the labels are showing against iTunes is pretty clear. I used to be concerned about it, but now I think it’s self-defeating, and will backfire on them.

Consider this:

• They don’t want Apple to sell DRM-free music.
• They don’t like Apple’s low prices.
• They want bundling, which Apple is against.

And yet, in their deals with Amazon:

• They’re allowing DRM-free music (at high quality, too).
• The prices are less.
• There’s no bundling to speak of.

As I stated at the time, I believed the labels’ plan was for Amazon to get a foothold, and then the labels would slowly start to make changes in pricing, etc.

However, given that six months later the labels have resorted to planting stories to make it appear Amazon is becoming a force in the market, it would seem it hasn’t taken off as fast as they’d hoped (it also shows their lack of patience).

So, in another six months, or a year, or whatever, if Amazon is deemed “big enough”, and the labels try to pull the trigger on pricing and bundling changes, I believe they’ll be unable to do it. The minute the (small) price advantage Amazon has over iTunes goes away, so will their customers.

In short, having offered something “better”, the labels will not be able to pull it away as they had hoped.

Finally, I think Amazon’s inability to truly kick ass is because of a fundamental issue I have with most of the online stores: Price.

How many people paid the $18 list price for a CD? Most used Wal-Mart, Target, used CD stores, etc. and paid $13 or less. Since digital music has no packaging, liner notes, physical media, duplication costs, and are lower quality, the idea that an album should cost $10 is ridiculous. In the digital world, $6 ought to be about right. Heck, if Sony/BMG can sell their physical CDs for $5.99, then there’s no excuse for digital versions to not be the same or less.

Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” offering should have made one thing clear. While many took the album for free, the average price was $6. Seems to me this was the consumers’ way of saying what the true price of a popular digital album should be. Too bad the labels paid no attention.

I have to admit I was intrigued by the idea of the Kindle, and awaited details anxiously. Now that the details are well known, it’s hard for me to look on the device with any enthusiasm.

I wanted something analogous to an “iPod for books.” The idea that I could buy books and store hundreds on one device is great. Going on a trip? Don’t worry about what book to bring; grab the device and go. Waiting at the Dr.’s office? Don’t read that six-month old magazine; you have everything with you. The idea of a portable reader is a good one to me.

Unfortunately, the Kindle is so badly implemented I’m not sure I can say anything good about it. Amazon’s mistakes (along with the obvious stupidity and paranoia of the publishers) is apparent everywhere.

It seems the only “good” news from the Kindle announcement is that it reveals the distinction between a “closed” and “open” system. The Kindle environment is in fact what others have been claiming (wrongly) the iPod/iTunes environment to be. It clearly shows the iPod system is not what ignorant pundits, bloggers, and sour grapes competitors have frequently claimed.

Consider the following:

For the iPod, the primary content is music. There are numerous sources for this:

• Can be purchased through iTunes. While many of these files are “open” (i.e., DRM-free), the majority (for now, see note below) contain DRM; but it’s easily stripped and the file turned into an “open” MP3 or AAC file.
• Can be purchased from any “open” online store such as eMusic and AmazonMP3.
• Can be purchased as physical CDs and ripped to the device as “open” files.
• Finally, of course, there’s no requirement to purchase anything at all because your existing CDs can be ripped to the device as “open” files.

NOTE: The iTunes store is currently over one-third (>2M out of 6M titles) “open”, and that number is increasing. As the labels allow Apple to do so, more and more iTunes tracks are sold as “open”.

To play the above files, you have numerous options:

• All Apple DRM files can be played on an unlimited number of iPods, up to five computers, and burned to CDs for play in any CD player.
• All files bought from an “open” store (or as “open” from iTunes) can be played anywhere and shared.
• All files ripped from CDs can be played anywhere and shared.

As for other formats, aside from standard MP3 and AAC files the iPod also supports Audible format (audio books), AIFF and WAV.

For the Kindle, the primary content is ebooks. There is only one source for the kind it supports:

• Purchased through Amazon. They contain DRM that cannot be stripped.

To “play” these books, there is only one option:

• Can be “played” on your Kindle. They cannot be shared or played elsewhere.

Other ebook formats? Standard IDPF (formerly Open eBook Forum) files are not supported. Oops.

Now let’s take the above and extrapolate from it…

If Apple shut down the iTunes store tomorrow, you’ve lost nothing in terms of purchased music. You may need to strip DRM from some iTunes-purchased files, but that’s easy and a (statistically) small percentage of your music collection. All your music is ultimately playable on any player of note.

If Apple starts selling crappy iPods tomorrow, can you buy a different player and use that? Absolutely, go right ahead since the “open” MP3 and AAC formats are supported by any player worth its salt. Heck, you could even buy a Zune.

If Amazon shuts down the Kindle store, what recourse do you have for books you’ve purchased? At present, none. Once your Kindle dies you’re screwed.

If Amazon stops selling the Kindle, or starts selling crappier ones, can you buy a different reader and use that? Nope, you’re screwed.

So, do you see the difference now? I’m talking to you, Thurrott, Wilcox, and countless others who’ve posted ignorantly about a “lock-in” with the iPod system. Now that there is a bona-fide example in the real-world of an environment that actually has the kind of lock-in you decry, DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

Sadly, many of them won’t, or can’t admit to it since they’re just posting at Microsoft’s behest, or strictly to Apple-bash. Still, if you know of any rational individual who somehow believes iPod/iTunes represents some kind of lock-in, point them to this post.

Amazon opened their MP3 store today, and it’s clear iTunes has legitimate competition since Amazon avoids the pitfalls that made other music sites a joke. However, through it all some curious questions arise, which I’ll get to below. Meanwhile, here’s why this new site is a valid alternative to iTunes:

Type:
This is a buy-to-own store, not a music-rental store. And there is no DRM. Enough said.

Brand:
This is not some entity you’ve never heard of. This is Amazon. Even though the system is beta, I tend to trust it more than a new company formed by groups looking to make a quick buck or fit a marketing plan. Further, even as beta I expect Amazon to have fewer glitches than a new company. After all, they’ve been doing this online sale thing for a long time (it remains to be seen how well they are at the download process, however).

Interface:
Works fine on PCs and Macs. While not as slick as iTunes’, the interface is pretty easy to navigate and will be familiar to anyone who’s used Amazon. I bookmarked the site, and occasionally used that to get “home” because an obvious way back was not available. Also, on a couple of occasions I found myself in the CD section of Amazon when that’s not what I wanted. Overall, though, it’s a pretty good interface for a beta.

Compatibility:
Since there’s no DRM, all files are playable on any MP3 device (your computer, iPod, CD, iPod, car player, iPod, Sansa, iPod, Zune, iPod, etc.).

Price:
Price is quite good. Lots of popular albums for $8.99, a dollar less than iTunes. They advertise albums for under $4.99, $5.99, etc., but that’s misleading since they’re EPs. You’re still paying ~90 cents a song. The iTunes store has lower prices on such “albums” as well. Amazon singles are 99 cents, better than iTunes because their DRM-free tracks are $1.29.

Quality:
All tracks are 256K MP3. The free track I got was 256K VBR LAME encoded, which is about as good as MP3 gets. However, the album I bought was 256K CBR with no information about the encoder. Clearly there’s some variance, but at 256K they should all be very good quality.

Selection:
Since this is DRM-free music, an initial offering of two million tracks is actually pretty good. It pales next to iTunes’ six million, but that’s not all DRM-free. Amazon’s site really shines a light on what is not DRM-free. For example, where’s Sony? And where is most of Universal’s catalog?

Clearly, this is not yet another “me too” site that will close with a whimper in 18 months. For now, it’s a legitimate place for me to browse when I want to buy an album, though by no means a slam dunk.
But something doesn’t smell right…

Amazon’s DRM-free prices are in line or even less than iTunes’ DRM prices. Think about that for a minute. The labels hate iTunes pricing — it’s what they constantly bitch about — yet here is Amazon with those same iTunes prices (or less!) for tracks having a distinct advantage.

EMI wanted more money from Apple for singles with no DRM, but seem perfectly satisfied with Amazon’s 99 cent price for the same thing. Why? Further, Universal has repeatedly said they’d never remove DRM, yet they tossed a few hundred thousand DRM-less tracks to Amazon at only 99 cents. What gives? Why the special treatment?

In my opinion this is just a push for Amazon to get customers while the labels hope to break iTunes’ grip on the digital music world. If the store gets popular, expect the labels to raise prices and, unlike Apple, expect Amazon to have little issue with this. The labels might also rollout more tracks, but with DRM. We know Amazon’s video site is in bed with content providers (most recently NBC); they clearly have no issue with DRM. I think if Amazon were seen as a threat to balk at any of this they wouldn’t be getting this preferential treatment to begin with.

So what’s going on, is this all just to spite Apple? That makes no sense because the labels gain nothing from it; all they‘d have done is create another iTunes store, or worse. Have they changed their mind on DRM? Then offer all of Universal’s tracks and, for that matter, the other labels’ as well. Have they decided iTunes pricing isn’t so bad after all? Then offer Apple the same terms. Do they just want to build a popular store with a partner who won’t argue over pricing and DRM restrictions? DING DING DING DING DING!! We have a winner!

Of course, I could be wrong, but something doesn’t smell right.

My question for Amazon is: Why MP3? You could give iTunes a run for its money here, but are blowing it by not offering the superior AAC compression. AAC is essentially “MP4″, and has many improvements over MP3.

I think I know the answer. I’m sure the marketing types were all over MP3 because it can be used in every player. But AAC is supported by iPods, Zunes, some Sansas, some Sonys, and even some Palms, Nokia phones and Blackberrys. In other words, it’s very commonly supported. And for the ~15-20% potential additional customers whose players do not yet support AAC, I think they lose a lot of the ~80% of people whose players do. I, for instance, will not buy an MP3 from them when I can get an AAC from iTunes.

Amazon should sell AACs, and then differentiate themselves in other ways:

• Higher quality (Apple will be 256K, Amazon could go the full 320k).
• Lower price (I assume EMI will take the same amount no matter what, but maybe Amazon could shave a nickel of profit and try a lower price for a while).

Instead, they will offer an inferior product to most of us. Even if it was a nickel less, no thanks.

This is a shame, because selling the same (or better) product as Apple’s iTunes, Amazon could capitalize on their existing site traffic, especially the traffic for CD sales. It would be a natural.

I really think the decision to use MP3 is short-sighted and will cost them in the end. I think lots of iPod (and other AAC player) users would rather go for the better quality and lower size of AAC tracks.