Like the Difference Between Buying From an
Upscale Mall, or Buying From a Back Alley Black Market

post from Daring Fireball on 09 November 2010 11:04:14 PM. © Daring Fireball

Jon Buys:

I love Angry Birds for iOS, so I thought I’d see how the gamelooked and felt on Android. I searched for “Angry Birds” on theHTC and found two screens worth of knock-offs. Some of theseapplications took the artwork and Angry Birds name directly fromthe real game. There was one game called “Angry Avians”, who’sicon looked like a closeup of the red bird from the real game.There were Angry Birds wallpapers, Angry Birds books, and AngryBirds unlockers. I can’t imagine that any of these apps wereactually licensed to use either the Angry Birds name or the AngryBirds artwork. They are ripoffs riding the wave of the originalgame’s success.

?

Read The Full Article:
http://jonathanbuys.com/11-07-2010/Android-Marketplace.html

Digg this

The Washington Post App for iPad

post from Daring Fireball on 09 November 2010 10:03:56 PM. © Daring Fireball

I love this trend of creating high-production value movies to promote apps.

?

Read The Full Article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCUFxFoaloE

Digg this

Glassgate: Where Does Apples Responsibility End

post from GigaOM on 09 November 2010 07:04:47 PM. © GigaOM

Apple is pulling slide-on iPhone 4 cases from its retail shelves and the online store. Customers are reporting scratches and cracks caused by grit trapped between case and iPhone. Clearly, Apple wants to avoid a repeat of Antennagate. But is the company overreacting?

I don’t question the fact that Apple’s latest iPhone is susceptible to scratches, despite Apple Store employee claims that the “helicopter glass” used in its construction can withstand high velocity impacts, but I do question the iPhone maker’s responsibility regarding the glass case design when it comes to consumers.

The antenna is a different story. For users in poor coverage zones, where it might actually completely cut off signal reception, that’s a usage issue, and addressing it head-on was necessary. But scratches and cracks caused by contact with abrasive material? Not only is that a cosmetic problem, it’s also one people should be able to reasonably expect before even buying an iPhone, just by looking at the thing. Does it affect the product’s reliability? Clearly not, since the iPhone 4 is still the least likely smartphone to malfunction, according to a new SquareTrade report.

I have a case that involves a sliding component, and I use it all the time. I’m always careful to make sure the back is clean of dirt and dust before I slide the case on, but I’m also not going to be amazed or disappointed in Apple’s craftsmanship if I find scratches on the surface as a result.

My iPhone 3GS was criss-crossed with scratches by the time I retired it from service, but it also still worked fine. In fact, my girlfriend still uses it without issue, and it looks much better than the BlackBerry devices of friends who’ve had their phones for less than six months. No one comes up with a Watergate-based name for the way the cheap silver paint on RIM-designed bezels never fails to rub off and flake.

The iPhone 4′s design may not be perfect. It may even be more susceptible to damage than the last generation device. Is it a flaw? No. Should Apple be hand-holding consumers who can’t think logically about what might damage their devices? No. Should Apple continue to make risky design decisions that set the bar in terms of consumer electronics aesthetics? A thousand times yes.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req?d):

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/apple/glassgate-where-does-apples-responsibility-end/

Digg this

5 QR Code Readers for iPhone

post from GigaOM on 09 November 2010 07:04:47 PM. © GigaOM

QR codes are popping up everywhere in the U.S. In case you aren’t familiar with the tech, a QR code is a type of barcode which is square and is made up of a complicated pattern of black and white dots. You can find them in magazines, on business cards, and even on billboards. When read with a camera and the right software, the code magically becomes a phone number, a URL, contact information and more.

Many feature phones from other parts of the world have QR readers built-in, but not the iPhone. Fortunately, we have the App Store. I tested a whole range of different QR reader iPhone apps, and picked out five of the best. All are free to download. I tested each with three QR codes representing different content: a phone number, a piece of text (The quick brown fox…), and a URL (http://theappleblog.com).

#5: QR App

The interface for QR App can be a little confusing; in scan mode, what looks like the standard camera app shows up, making it seem as though you have to press the shutter button then the Use button. However, this isn’t the case — if the app detects a QR code anywhere in its view, it’ll automatically take the photo and read the barcode. I did have some trouble getting it to recognize codes sometimes, though.

Another annoyance I had with QR App was that the app will automatically open Safari or the Phone app without prompt f the code contains a URL or a phone number. Sometimes I like to be able to grab the information, but use it later on. The app does save a history of the codes you read, but I just don’t like the way it switches apps without asking permission first.

#4: i-nigma 4

There are two versions of i-nigma: i-nigma 4 for devices running iOS 4 and the other made for iOS 3. Like QR App, i-nigma saves a history of the codes you’ve read. However, i-nigma has a few sharing options for the codes in your history. You can display the code itself on your device’s screen for someone else to scan, or you can share on Facebook and Twitter. Unfortunately, sharing on social networks requires closing the app and opening the i-nigma website in Safari.

i-nigma has a few limited customization options: You can change the sound which plays when you scan a code, choose whether codes are automatically saved in the history, and whether you want URLs to be launched instantly or not. You can also save phone numbers you pick up into your contacts. It’s not the most flexible of apps, but it also isn’t the worst.

#3: TapReader

I’ll start with a downside to TapReader: when you launch the app for the first time, you need to give it an email address and set up a password, which it says is so that your QR codes are saved to your account for later viewing. However, the app has a local archive of recent QR codes, so I don’t see the need for an account.

My favourite feature of TapReader is that, although it can be a little hard to find at first, there’s a mode where you can scan multiple codes in succession without visiting the archive between scans. There may not be many occasions where you need to scan more than one code in a row, but at events like trade shows where you might be meeting a lot of people at once, it could come in handy.

There are also some settings in the app which allow you to turn off sound and vibration, and to decide which data types automatically launch other apps. This is good if you’d like phone numbers to automatically dial, for instance, but you don’t want URLs to open automatically.

#2: QR Scanner

Coming in at an extremely close second, QR Scanner is fast; you don’t have to align the code with the scanner on-screen; and it has settings similar to TapReader’s, which allow you to customise the apps which automatically launch when you scan a code. In its Recent Scans view, you can tap an item and have the option to open it with the appropriate app (it even suggests View on Map for addresses), or copy it to the clipboard.

The only reason QR Scanner falls to second is because of its interface. To put it simply, it’s ugly. Look at the screenshots in the gallery below for proof. Other than that, I can’t fault the app, but when it comes down to it, this is an iPhone, so I expect my apps to look good and work well.

#1: QR Reader for iPhone

The developers of QR Reader for iPhone got it exactly right. It’s the quickest to scan out of the five apps; it has a huge range usability and sharing options; and it also looks good.

When you read a code, the app will show you a “details” view which allows you to launch another app to open the information, except text and URLs, which both open within the app itself. For URLs, there’s a built-in web browser which cuts out the need for launching Safari. There are ads within the web browser view, but that’s a small price to pay with an app as nice as this.

Tapping Share in the details view brings up a list of ways to get the information out of the app, including email, Facebook, Twitter and Copy to Clipboard. The Facebook and Twitter options post to the service without leaving the app, so once you?ve logged in the first time, it’s a one-step process from then on.

Like I said, QR Reader for iPhone is the best app of the five, so if you’re going to download just one code reader, make it this one. Happy scanning!

LoadingNextPreviousPicture 1 of 19

QR App - Scan View

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req?d):

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/apple/5-qr-code-readers-for-iphone/

Digg this

Glassgate: Where Does Apple’s
Responsibility End

post from GigaOM on 09 November 2010 05:04:01 PM. © GigaOM

Apple is pulling slide-on iPhone 4 cases from its retail shelves and the online store. Customers are reporting scratches and cracks caused by grit trapped between case and iPhone. Clearly, Apple wants to avoid a repeat of Antennagate. But is the company overreacting?

I don’t question the fact that Apple’s latest iPhone is susceptible to scratches, despite Apple Store employee claims that the “helicopter glass” used in its construction can withstand high velocity impacts, but I do question the iPhone maker’s responsibility regarding the glass case design when it comes to consumers.

The antenna is a different story. For users in poor coverage zones, where it might actually completely cut off signal reception, that’s a usage issue, and addressing it head-on was necessary. But scratches and cracks caused by contact with abrasive material? Not only is that a cosmetic problem, it’s also one people should be able to reasonably expect before even buying an iPhone, just by looking at the thing. Does it affect the product’s reliability? Clearly not, since the iPhone 4 is still the least likely smartphone to malfunction, according to a new SquareTrade report.

I have a case that involves a sliding component, and I use it all the time. I’m always careful to make sure the back is clean of dirt and dust before I slide the case on, but I’m also not going to be amazed or disappointed in Apple’s craftsmanship if I find scratches on the surface as a result.

My iPhone 3GS was criss-crossed with scratches by the time I retired it from service, but it also still worked fine. In fact, my girlfriend still uses it without issue, and it looks much better than the BlackBerry devices of friends who’ve had their phones for less than six months. No one comes up with a Watergate-based name for the way the cheap silver paint on RIM-designed bezels never fails to rub off and flake.

The iPhone 4′s design may not be perfect. It may even be more susceptible to damage than the last generation device. Is it a flaw? No. Should Apple be hand-holding consumers who can’t think logically about what might damage their devices? No. Should Apple continue to make risky design decisions that set the bar in terms of consumer electronics aesthetics? A thousand times yes.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req?d):

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/apple/glassgate-where-does-apples-responsibility-end/

Digg this

Apples Pricing Advantage

post from Daring Fireball on 09 November 2010 04:04:51 PM. © Daring Fireball

Earlier this week I linked to this piece by Larry Dignan on tablet pricing. Dignan wrote:

When Apple CEO Steve Jobs launched the iPad it wasn?t clear howaggressively these newfangled devices were priced. Now we knowbecause Android tablets and other rival tablets can?t hang onpricing.

Linking to it, I wrote:

Today?s Apple has turned the pricing story on its head. Used tobe the knock against Apple was their kit was overpriced. Now, evenputting quality aside, competitors can?t match Apple?s prices.

This is not the case with Macs vs. Windows PCs. The switch to Intel processors has largely made the Mac price competitive with PCs, comparing comparable hardware, but the vast majority of PCs sold are not comparable to Macs in terms of hardware quality and design. It’s a fair to argue that a typical PC costs significantly less than a typical Mac. I’ll get back to PCs, but for now, let’s consider only consumer electronics: iPods, iPhones, and iPads.

Phones are a funny business because of subsidized pricing. When you buy an iPhone 4 for $199 from AT&T, you’re not really buying it for $199, because you’re agreeing to an expensive two-year service contract. But when you look at unsubsidized phone pricing — see the small print at the bottom of Apple’s iPhone comparison page — you can see the real prices: $599/$699 for the 16/32 GB models, respectively.

These prices compare quite well to the competition. The Samsung Galaxy S — a decent choice for the current “Best Android Phone on the Market” title (check back next week, though) — costs about $600 unlocked from Amazon, and only has only 8 GB of built-in storage. The HTC Desire costs just under $600. Google’s Nexus One, while they were selling it, cost $529.

Now, there are some differences when you take subsidized pricing into account. There are buy-one-get-one-free deals for many Android handsets; there are no such deals for iPhones. The HTC Droid Incredible, with no contract, costs $530 at Amazon. With a new two-year Verizon contract, it’s free. Those subsidized discounts are about the commodity nature of the Android platform, and the cut-throat competition between competing Android handset makers. The unsubsidized prices make clear, though, that they aren’t undercutting the iPhone on real prices.

(I’d argue that the lower subsidized prices of many Android phones compared to the iPhone is really about the handset makers’ relative bargaining position against the carriers. A carrier that wants the iPhone has one option: negotiate with Apple. A carrier that wants some good Android handsets can play HTC, Samsung, LG, Motorola, and whoever else against each other.)

Now consider traditional (pre-Touch) iPods. Nine years later and the iPod is still the best-selling digital audio player in the world, by a long shot. You can find cheaper ones, but not by much.

The best example of Apple’s price advantage, though, is the iPod Touch. I would love to buy a $229 Android device that’s the equivalent of the iPod Touch — i.e., something pretty much just like a high-end Android phone but without the phone (and without the contract). Three years and 30 or 40 million iPod Touch sales later, there remains no such Android device. I suspect the main reason is that no other handset maker can afford to make one. (I also suspect that the relatively low price of the iPod Touch suggests that Apple could afford to charge much less for unsubsidized iPhones.)

Lastly, consider the iPad. The first batch of competing tablets are coming with 7-inch displays. They say it’s because they think that’s a better size. Steve Jobs, making an appearance on Apple’s most-recent quarterly financial analyst call, said it’s because 7-inch displays are cheaper, and no one else can afford to match the iPad’s price with a comparably sized touchscreen display. Given that Verizon is selling the Galaxy Tab for $599 — just $30 less than the equivalent iPad — my money goes to Jobs’s explanation.

iPods, iPhones, iPads. Across all of them, Apple’s prices are either comparable, or lower, than their competition.

So what’s the difference between these devices and the PC industry? A few things, and they all work in Apple’s favor.

First, Apple is the world’s leading volume buyer of a precious, expensive component: flash storage. They get better prices and priority availability from suppliers. They also enjoy volume purchasing advantages with other components — touchscreen LCDs, wireless networking chipsets, etc. — but flash storage is the most volatile, and the one where Apple has declared itself the number-one buyer in the world. Plus, Apple is a marvel of operational efficiency. Try to find someone, anywhere, to offer anything other than effusive praise regarding Tim Cook’s job as COO at Apple.

But there’s another major factor at play, which I believe is more important than volume pricing. It’s about design and build quality. Apple’s competitors in the consumer electronics space are, at least for now, all trying to compete at a high level with regard to design. HTC, Motorola, Samsung — their Android products are nicely designed and well-built. One can argue that they’re not as good as Apple’s products, but they’re in the same ballpark.

Whereas with PCs, the mass market PC makers have always been content to build products way below Apple’s standards for design and quality, and consumers were (and largely remain, today) content to buy them.

PCs, especially historically, were compared based on technical specs. An awful lot of PCs have been sold to people who never even looked at the enclosure — only the specs. That’s not how the game is played in consumer electronics. Nobody knows what kind of CPU they have in their phones. (Where by “nobody”, I mean “no regular people”.) Apple doesn’t even publish CPU specs for iOS devices, nor publish how much RAM they contain.

With computers, again, it’s fair to say that the typical Mac costs more than the typical Windows PC. That’s not true for mobile devices, which means Apple gets to compete mostly on factors like design, user experience, and branding. In short, the nascent mobile computing market has much more in common with the traditional consumer electronics market than it does with the PC industry,¹ and that works very much in Apple’s favor.

Microsoft’s 2004 “PlaysForSure” strategy for MP3 players was clearly an effort to bring a PC-style strategy to consumer electronics. Uncountable pundits and analysts expected it to “do to the iPod what Windows did to the Mac”. PlaysForSure failed spectacularly. ↩

Read The Full Article:
http://daringfireball.net/2010/11/apples_pricing_advantage

Digg this

Amazon’s New Periodicals Deal: Better Than
Apps

post from GigaOM on 09 November 2010 02:04:21 PM. © GigaOM

The iPad seems well-designed for magazines, but Apple has had trouble working out a subscription model with publishers that works for all concerned. Might Jeff Bezos have stolen away the revenue potential represented by periodicals with Amazon’s latest move?

Amazon announced that it would be increasing the revenue split for newspapers and magazines sold in the Kindle store to 70/30 after delivery costs, with the larger chunk going to publishers. It’s the same deal Apple offers, so the Kindle store should see an influx of content, but it’s the not the part of the deal that hold the most promise for Amazon.

In exchange for the new distribution of revenue, Amazon now requires that all periodicals must be able to be read on any platform on which the Kindle application appears, including the iPhone, iPad and Android devices. Currently, content delivered through newspaper and magazine subscriptions in the Kindle store can only be viewed on actual Kindle hardware. Extending the “buy once, read anywhere” strategy that’s helping Amazon win the e-book war will greatly increase its chances in this battle, too.

Making Kindle periodicals cross-platform will give Amazon the advantage when it comes to providing digital subscriptions on iOS devices. Since the Kindle reader is a proven success, and the Kindle Store has a much wider reach than the Apple iBookstore, that should translate into a big lead in the digital magazine market, too.

The New Yorker costs $4.99 per issue if bought as an iPad app. Subscriptions to the magazine in the Kindle Store only cost $2.99 per month. It’s a large gap, and users aren’t likely to be willing to pay the difference even if the iPad versions are specifically formatted for the platform and contain some extra interactive content. Kindle’s interactive digital editions, introduced back in February, may help narrow the feature gap anyway.

If Amazon can convince publishers to accept the new deal and provide cross-platform content, something it clearly hopes to encourage via the new, easier publishing tool it also announced alongside the new revenue model, then Apple might be stuck on the outside looking in when it comes to digital periodical sales.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req?d):

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/apple/amazons-new-periodicals-deal-better-than-apps/

Digg this

Rene Ritchies iOS 4.2 for iPad Walkthrough

And here’s the corresponding walkthrough for the iPhone and iPod Touch; both are based on the GM releases of iOS 4.2 from last week.

?

Read The Full Article:
http://www.tipb.com/2010/11/07/ios-42-ipad-walkthrough-2/

Digg this

Motives Behind Apple’s Wi-Gear Bluetooth
Acquistion

Apple has acquired Bluetooth headphone maker Wi-Gear, according to a new report. The purchase could result in new Bluetooth headsets for use with iOS devices and Mac computers, but what’s more interesting is what it says about Apple’s acquisition strategy and the future of accessory makers working in its ecosystem.

Why Wi-Gear

Wi-Gear, which made the iMuffs A2DP stereo headphones for the iPhone, as well as a Bluetooth 2.0 adapter for earlier generation devices which lacked onboard support for the communication technology, was bought by Apple around two months ago, according to 9t05mac. The report is further supported by evidence found on LinkedIn. A former Wi-Gear engineer’s profile says that he joined Apple’s Bluetooth team exactly two months ago, precisely when Apple is supposed to have acquired the accessory-maker. This is the same method used to ferret out Apple’s purchase of semiconductor IP firm Intrinsity.

While initially, Wi-Gear may seem like an unlikely target, a simple search reveals that reviewers consistently give the iMuffs very high marks. It’s a buy that keeps with Apple’s overall strategy of acquiring smaller companies that excel at what they do, but aren’t yet at an advanced state of maturity. Wi-Gear is only five years old, and brings highly specialized IP into the Apple fold.

How it Fits Apple’s Overall Acquisition Plan

If you look at GigaOM Pro analyst Michaels Wolf’s acquisition rubric governing Apple’s purchases (subscription required), a Wi-Gear buy makes perfect sense. Apple gets increased control over call and music quality associated with its devices; it can now create a high-quality, Apple-branded Bluetooth stereo solution tailored to iPhone that will help further differentiate it from Google’s all-third party hardware strategy; and it can cash in directly on the wireless headphone accessory market that has sprung up around its products.

A Warning Shot for Accessory Makers

It’s that last point that should have accessory makers worried. The iOS accessory ecosystem is one of the most profitable for third-party device manufacturers. Much like Twitter did in early days with third-party apps, Apple has used that accessories ecosystem to provide value-add incentives to draw customers to its products. Now that Apple’s available cash exceeds $50 billion, the company is keen on making strategic acquisitions, and part of that strategy could involve profiting more directly from the ecosystem third-party companies have helped create and grow.

As Geoffrey Goetz noted, Apple’s past two media events have had potentially devastating consequences for businesses and even entire industries that depend on the Mac-maker in one way or another to make money. Until now, those consequences have been largely the result of component decisions or software releases, but this latest acquisition could signal the beginning of the end for accessory makers closest to Apple’s core business, too.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req?d):

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/apple/motives-behind-apples-wi-gear-bluetooth-acquistion/

Digg this

9to5 Mac Reports Apple Bought Bluetooth Headphone
Maker Wi-Gear Two Months Ago

Nice scoop by Seth Weintraub:

A source tells 9to5Mac that Apple scooped up a small Bluetoothwireless headphone designer in San Francisco two months ago for anundisclosed sum. The company, called Wi-Gear, made threegenerations of A2DP stereo headphones called iMuffs as well as aBluetooth 2.0 adapter for older iPhones and iPods that don?tsupport Bluetooth 2.0. Wi-Gear?s products were specificallygeared to be used with Apple iOS devices.

?

Read The Full Article:
http://www.9to5mac.com/34608/apple-buys-wi-gear-to-build-stereo-bluetooth-headpho
nes

Digg this