- Posts tagged iOS
- Explore iOS on posterous
Then why does the rest of the article even matter?
Apple’s superior monetization policies attracted good developers within its ranks, thus creating a better catalog of apps and customer experience.
Good developers? Check
Better catalog? Check
Better customer experience? Check.
Um, what is Android happy about again?
Apple's iOS Multitasking: It's more than one app at a time
The philosophy baked into the iPad of one app at a time might be viewed as a shortfall in some folk’s eyes, but it results in a smooth, consistent user experience
The article explains how other tablets implement traditional multitasking while Apple does not, and it's one reason the iPad performs so much better.
My issue with this kind of thinking is that there's "technical" multitasking—the hows and whys geeks argue over—and there's "real world" multitasking—what users see in terms of having multiple background apps to which they can switch.
It's fine to point out that Apple's multitasking implementation is not the traditional one, but to essentially characterize it as "one app at a time" minimizes the excellent job they did. And it's not true. There are allowances for being in the background going on when it matters for an app. Apple's apps have had it since 2007.
A "technical" multitasker may find examples in Apple's implementation that do not exist in the traditional model, but that only tells us what we already know: the implementations are different. What's relevant is that the vast majority of users do not see a difference between the implementations when using the device. They did notice (in a few circumstances) when third parties could not participate, but that's long past.
It's not a question of traditional multitasking vs. one app at a time. The choice Apple made was to provide the overall benefits of traditional multitasking with almost none of the many drawbacks. It required re-thinking, extra work and, yes, innovation, but that's why Apple leads.
Super slates?
To honor these creative (though likely doomed) efforts, we've rounded up our favorite tablets that set themselves apart with a killer feature or design that Apple can't match.
Why honor designs that are "likely doomed"? For that matter, if the feature is killer why is the device doomed in the first place?
It's not that Apple can't match e-ink screens, a remote control IR blaster or the ever-popular stereoscopic camera. No, something else keeps Apple from putting these in an iPad. I'm guessing it's good business sense.
I'll Take "iPad Competitors Flummoxed" For $1,000
Interesting tidbits on supposed tablet redesigns. Perhaps my favorite:
according to the tips: [HP] would supposedly be transferring the development of the next TouchPad to its notebook division rather than rely on the former Palm team.… A switch wouldn't preclude the involvement of the former Palm team but would suggest that most of their involvement [sic] to webOS rather than the complete design, as they had in the past.
This one's hard to believe. HP would have the software and hardware groups less involved with each other? Sure, it'd still be an all-HP effort, but it seems this approach is more like every other tablet being made except RIM's. HP has everything in-house, yet they'd build a wall between them? That'd be crazy. Is HP that crazy?
Regardless of HP's plans, other companies making dedicated tablets were also said to be planning urgent redesigns of their own. Two to three companies were postponing their tablets to rework them and compete more effectively with the upgraded iPad. In some cases, hardware was being moved back one to two months, while others might be canceled altogether, a second round of insiders claimed.
"Insiders claimed." Again, the source of the story is questionable, but we can gage its accuracy if any of the recently announced tablets set to arrive this spring begin getting pushed back.
Smartphone OS Upgrades: iPhone's "can" vs. Android's "can't"
TechCrunch's post shows a huge discrepancy of smartphones running the latest versions of Android vs. iOS. The numbers will surprise no one that follows mobile tech, but I believe there's a larger point that doesn't even need a chart to make. What should be discussed is how many phones it's even possible to upgrade. That's the real story.
It's well known (if not well reported) that upgrading an Android device is hit or miss. It could be because of the carrier, or the manufacturer, or a combination of both. One thing's certain: Google has no control over the process for any phones other than their own Nexus-branded models, and there's only two of those.
Recently, Computerworld examined carrier and manufacturer "trust" in terms of upgrading Android phones, and the conclusions are dismal. For manufacturers, HTC took top honors:
50 percent of its Android phones having been bumped to Froyo within 2010. Its average upgrade time is also relatively impressive, at 56 days.
Only half their phones were upgraded, but other manufacturers were worse.
Meanwhile, for carriers Verizon took the crown:
A third of the carrier's qualifying Android phones received Froyo within the software's first six months on the market. On average, it took Big Red 58 days to get those updates delivered.
Only a third of the eligible phones are upgraded, yet it's King among carriers.
If you had an HTC phone on Verizon, you had about a 17% chance (one-third of 50%) of upgrading to Froyo last year. And that was your best shot since other manufacturer/carrier combinations were worse.
For the iPhone things are easier. Put simply, 100% of current and -1 generation phones are eligible for upgrades. Apple has even made upgrades available for -2 generation phones, though some features are not available.
It's not just that these iPhones are eligible, but that the carriers have no involvement in the actual upgrade. Just connect the iPhone to iTunes and let it upgrade. That's it. Further, the upgrades are available on the day a new OS is released, not two months later, which is the best Android's manufacturers/carriers can manage.
The mobile market tends to treat their devices as semi-disposable, so it may be unrealistic to discuss models over two years old, but in Android's case "old" models aren't needed to skew the numbers. There are models only five or six months old seemingly "abandoned". This makes Apple's major upgrade to each generation of iPhone, twice, all the more impressive.
Why a Seven-inch iPad Makes No Sense
A recent article on GigaOM's Mobile site attempts to explain why Apple should consider releasing a 7" iPad. I find myself in disagreement with all the points given.
Apple reportedly developed a seven-inch iPad as it built the 9.7-inch version… so a smaller iPad would enable Apple to fill in the void between its iPod touch and the current full-sized tablet without spending a fortune in development.
I don't think R&D cost is an issue. Apple's not afraid to spend a lot of money on development, it's how they stay ahead of everyone.
I also disagree with the feeling Apple must "fill in the void" between the iPod touch and the current iPad. The touch is a pocket device, and will always be limited by that form factor. Once you break away from that—forcing the user to carry the device—then it must be worth that inconvenience. A 7" tablet with less than half the resolution of a 9.7" doesn't provide a "big enough" experience to make it worth carrying around.
The iPad screen is ideal for sitting on a lap or a table and using as you might use a laptop. It doesn't have to be close to be used effectively, so it can easily be used with two hands, such as when typing in landscape. A 7" tablet isn't big enough for many people to use at "laptop distance". It needs to be closer, which for some people requires that it be held to be used. This requirement essentially turns it into a big smartphone, which is what the iPad was mocked as being when it was first released.
With dozens of tablets set to launch over the next couple of quarters, users will have a wide variety of sizes, features and operating systems to choose from.
The idea that Apple should churn out form factors to compete with numerous hardware manufacturers is nonsense. Look at the huge range of laptops, desktops and smartphones, yet Apple doesn't need to make that many to compete effectively. In fact, Steve Jobs killing a large variety of products was possibly the smartest thing he did upon returning to Apple. They're not going back to those days.
The current iPad is the perfect coffee-table tablet and is ideal for watching video, browsing the web or passing back and forth to play Scrabble. But its size and weight make it cumbersome on the go.
See my first point. Once you cross the threshold where the user must carry the device (i.e., not in a pocket or belt case), then the portability difference between a 7" and the current iPad is not as large as it's made out to be. Especially when one considers the iPad is a pseudo-notebook whereas the 7" is not.
The apps. It’s true that some iPad apps take full advantage of the great real estate, and many enterprise/productivity apps are much easier to use on the bigger screen. But many of the top iPad apps are simply blown-up versions of their iPhone counterparts and would operate fine on a smaller screen
Define "fine." Native apps are the iPad. Remember when we all bought the iPad because it could run iPhone apps? Remember when we found out the majority of iPhone apps look like crap on it? A tablet begs for native apps. Apple introduced new UI elements and SDK improvements specifically for it. iPad users crave native apps because they make that much of a difference. They transform the device because they realize its potential.
For the author to suggest regular Android apps running on a 7" would be good enough is ignoring the iPad's lessons. Since the screen is much smaller scaled apps may look a little better, but even if they look fine yet otherwise run the same as on a phone what's the point of the larger display?
Ultimately a larger screen requires better use of that screen or it provides little real advantage. Native UI and SDK improvements made this happen, with consistency, on the iPad. Where are they for Android? The lack of consistent native tablet apps across devices will be a weakness of Android tablets, and this would be true even with a 10" device.
Developers don't rush to new platforms
The problem is that hardware manufacturers and tech journalists assume that the hardware just needs to exist, and developers will flock to it because it’s possible to write software for it. But that’s not why we’re making iPhone and iPad software
Great post by Marco Arment on what developers really need to compel them to develop for a new platform.
