AR

I don't have a clear vision of how augmented reality (AR) will fit in.  Not that I should - that's for the people who do this for a living - but, after all the demos of HoloLens, iPad and iPhone apps, etc., I still can't see it.  I can see how it is a cool, and difficult to execute, technology.  I can see how AR helps in some technical situations (repairs, in particular, make a lot of sense; maybe to see how furniture or clothing might look in situ?).  But, right now, it feels a little like 3D (much of AR in fact is real-time 3D, it seems) with similar, limited utility.  For example, the games, where something is placed on a table top or in surroundings, AR is fun but, ultimately, I don't see what the difference is vs. just using the gyroscope and generating the entire world in 3D rather than as an overlay.  MAYBE, if actual physical objects in between had presence (for example, in a multi-player shooting game, if one could "take cover" behind an actual object), that would be neat.  But I haven't seen it.

That said, I wonder if AR is like maps.  Something that doesn't seem that different on a device or online vs. a paper atlas but, in reality, hugely different when dynamic, location-aware, meta-data aware, etc.  AR is sort of like a map but much more directed (like a heads up display for a driver).  Just wondering if thinking of AR like a map will help me see why so much energy is being directed to something that still seems like a gimmick or a technology in search of a use.

TiVo Mini and Apple TV

I am dedicated to TiVo - I've had multiple boxes for nearly 15 years.  I like the ease of use, the reliability, etc.  It's a great product and service (but very expensive).

I love the TiVo app for iOS.  It works great, it has a lot of flexibility, and has a pretty good interface (pretty good as it tries to do a lot, including acting as a soft remote control for multiple TiVo boxes).

TiVo makes a TiVo Mini. This is sort of a weird product - it is like a headunit for a TiVo that allows one to replicate the functions of a TiVo on a different monitor.  But, at its heart, is really just the TiVo app in hardware form.  And it is very expensive ($149).  And, even weirder, it is inconvenient to set up - it requires a hard wire (coax or ethernet) connection.  No wireless permitted.

My wish: that TiVo would release its app for Apple TV.  I know this would cut into TiVo Mini sales but I wonder how many people are really buying a Mini. I also wonder how many people would find TiVo more attractive if they could own one and watch in multiple locations with an AppleTV.  AppleTV seems to work fine on WiFi (unlike the TiVo Mini).  And the programming effort for TiVo is likely trivial (I believe tvOS is closely related to iOS).  I know that the TiVo remote won't work but, given that the main benefit of the TiVo Mini is just to stream from the "main" TiVo box, I think it would make sense for TiVo to offer this.  It would bring more people into the TiVo fold and that's probably a good thing.

iOS adoption rates

I wonder to what extent iOS adoption rates are affected by the longevity of iOS devices.  For example, if the rate is truly determined by looking at the number of unique devices that access the App Store, older devices that cannot support the most recent iOS release would drag down the reported adoption rates.

It would also be interesting to see official adoption rates by device (iPhone 6, iPhone 6S, etc.) or at least device type or vintage (iPad, iPod Touch, etc. or 2015 purchase).  There are unofficial trackers that do exactly this, but it would be nice to have more authoritative data.

Finally, it would be nice if the official page gave some detail on the methodology beyond being “measured by the App Store”.

Perhaps a small product portfolio and growth are not at odds?

This DaringFireball post made me think a little bit about the recurring (2015, 2014, 2013, 2012) theme of "Apple is too dependent on a single product".

There's no doubt that Apple's results and future are closely tied to the iPhone's continued success.  But I also think it is important to think about how much that concentration on iPhone has created the success.

Gruber's comment about Apple's rapid and enormous growth (i.e., both its rate as well as its rate in the face of its large size) highlighted, again, the importance of having a small suite of products (the fabled: "We can put all of our products on the table you're sitting at").  It's not news that the sharp focus allows Apple to break the mold of low-return device sales.  My small question of the day is whether, beyond customer satisfaction, the only way to manage a giant company (at least by market cap) successfully is to have a narrow portfolio of products?  I'm distinguishing between a complex company and a complicated product mix.  There can be a lot of activity (a complex company) that supports the sale of those products but, to make sure efforts are coordinated, the products (and thus goals) must be few.

And the portfolio is even smaller than it may appear.  The criticisms of "iPad is a just a big iPhone" and insight that AppleTV is just a display-less iPhone also mean that the products have significant overlap.  Which means that the supporting underlying activity for each is largely complementary.

And, as I write this, I realize it may be captured in the Asymco post I just linked to - from 2010 (of course Asymco figured this out a long time ago).  Oil companies (the title is "Apple vs. Exxon-Mobil") are another example of giant complicated companies with small portfolios.

can't delete Apple Music?

Why does this Wired author assert that "You can't delete" Apple Music?  If Brian Barrett means "you can't go back to the old Music App", he's pretty wrong.  If he means you can't delete the Music App period, he's right but that has always been the case.  And I'm pretty sure he means the former as he seems to be lamenting the change from the old Music app.

For those who don't want Apple Music (I didn't - I was spooked by the lost songs/mixed up metadata problems and didn't think it likely I would use Connect), and who want to revert back to the old pre-Apple Music app, do the following:

1) go to settings>general>restrictions and scroll down to "Apple Music Connect".  Deselect Apple Music Connect and enable restrictions.
2) go to settings>music and deselect "Show Apple Music".
3) if you use iTunes Match, leave "iCloud Music Library" enabled to keep playlists synced and all music available on your devices.

And now you are back to your pre-Apple Music app.  No Connect.  No "New".  No "For You".  Just Music, playlists, and radio.  Just like before.

Is it a little inconvenient?  Absolutely - I needed to write a set of instructions.  Is it difficult?  Not really, the instructions had two (maybe three) steps.

"Windows Fans"

In most of the articles about Microsoft's write-down of $7.6b on its Nokia deal, as well as the source email itself from Satya Nadella, there is a reference to refocusing Microsoft's mobile efforts on three groups: business/enterprise customers, users of lower-cost phones, and "Windows fans".

The first is fine - I think that Microsoft's franchise has shifted to weight Office more than Windows and so targeting business makes sense (although I'm not sure how giving Office away for free works to earn profits).

The second is dangerous but perfectly plausible.  Not a great customer base but big volumes can go a long way.  Of course, for software, the margins are nearly 100% so competing on price is dangerous but fine (also, hard to see how this works well with targeting business users?).

But the third is baffling.  Who is a "Windows fan"?  I thought Windows was universal because users had no choice, not because users loved the brand.  And I write brand very specifically.  I don't mean that some users don't love a specific version of Windows (personally, I think Windows 7 is great and they really should have just fired everyone and kept raking in the profits from selling it for years). I mean that, given the multiple changes to the OS (especially on mobile but also more generally - see Windows 8 v 8.1), it can't mean that they love their Windows workflow (there is no such thing as workflows generally don't translate from desktop to mobile/keyboard to touch). And it can't mean for the APIs (programmers are not a big enough market to set as one of three core targets for sales).  So it must mean a devotion to the BRAND.  But that seems insane.  And why do none of the articles even question the idea of their being a meaningful set of fans of the Window brand large enough to translate from desktop to mobile?

People like Android but, really, it is by defining themselves against iOS.
People like iOS but, really, it is either by defining itself against Android or against history.  As the OS stops evolving so rapidly (there was no cut and paste only a few years ago...), there will be less to delight and the OS will just fade into the background.  And, what people really like about iOS are the apps available and the integration with other Apple products at a core level.

But I don't think anyone LOVES Windows because there isn't another reasonable comparison.  And the apps don't exist on Mobile.  And I don't think the experience is really so different from Android or iOS that it matters.

So are there only two legs?

Left hands and right hands

Duane Reade/Walgreens has an app that, among many other features, has an electronic copy of their loyalty card and permits it to be included in Passbook (iOS’s electronic wallet).  In fact, it is even location aware so that the card will appear on one’s phone when nearby the store to ease scanning at the register. And the website confirms that the phone version of the card works in the store.

So far, pretty sensible.

However, when one arrives that the register and tries to scan the phone, the cashier will say: “Sorry, we’re not allowed to scan phones so please enter your phone number instead.”  And then, “no, you may not enter your card number, only your phone number.”  What?  Why is there an electronic copy of the card?  Why is it in passbook?  Why is it location aware?

Is the unfortunate person on the app side unaware that someone on the rewards side doesn’t want people to use electronic versions of the loyalty card (which itself is baffling given that using the card is more helpful to Walgreens than it is to the customer)?

Someone at Walgreens is not doing their job.

See also this for Target's version of left hands/right hands with respect to apps and in-store.

Using Android against itself

This is funny.  As part of its efforts to switch users from Android to iOS, Apple will release an "Android Migration" app to move "contacts, message history, photos and video, Web bookmarks, mail accounts, calendars and even wallpapers" from the user's Android phone to iOS.

Why funny?  Because the loose nature of security in Android (including access to system level items such as wallpapers) means one can create an app like this on Android but not (or not without great difficulty) on iOS.

Also funny is that, given the prevalence of developing for iOS first, nearly all meaningful apps on Android have iOS counterparts and so Apple could have a "baby-version" of the app that at least shows that the potential switchee will not lose any core apps he or she depends on.

Finally funny is seeing Apple's fonts and style on an Android phone and not because it is a knock-off.

UPDATE: iOS app privacy

How does a Google or Microsoft iOS app know that I have other Google or Microsoft apps installed on my iOS device?  For example, if I download and install Chrome (after having, perhaps Google Maps installed and myself logged in), I am greeted with to offer to sign in - and Chrome already knows my Google ID.  Similarly, if I download Word, log-in, and then download Excel, Excel already knows my Microsoft ID.

This is surprising as it means the apps have access to both a list of my existing apps (I think this is okay but not ideal) as well as my user ID (huh?).  Is it possible for me to write an app that can: (i) determine a user's Google ID; and (ii) ask the user to log in and thus give me credentials?  (i) alone seems bad, (ii) is very bad.

Also, noting that I do not even need to provide a password to confirm to Chrome that I am myself, is there some serious security lapse here?

All very odd

UPDATE: Is this related?  http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/24/apple-expanding-user-privacy-will-prevent-ios-apps-from-seeing-other-installed-apps.  It's not completely the same (as this seems narrower than knowing my Google ID and Microsoft ID).  But perhaps part of the same framework?

Apple Pay and Target

Someone at Target is not paying attention.

Target revised its iOS app to let shoppers use Apple Pay to buy on-line.  However, they neglected to work with their bank partner/issuer (TD Bank, I think) to allow their own store branded Visa card to be registered with Apple Pay.  I know Target can't direct their partner and that Target is not that interested in the Visa card at this point, but one would think they could cajole TD and/or delay the adoption of Apple Pay until they could avoid this conspicuous gap.  This is on top of not being able to use Apple Pay at the register (which is understandable as Target has not yet installed NFC devices at the register).

iPhone 6 and one-handed typing

Why would one-handed mode on a large-screen iPhone require a crazy re-sizing scheme?  Wouldn’t it just be a small variation of the iPad’s shrink-and-split keyboard where the iPhone keyboard would shrink to match the size of the regular iPhone keyboard and shift to one side or the other?  It could even use the same trigger (a slide of the screen once engaged) or just default to shrunk and shifted.

AppleTV and gaming

I had expected games to be announced for AppleTV by now (so much so that I foolishly deferred buying an AppleTV for our new television).  I had originally assumed that the announcement would be dependent upon a large enough installed base of AppleTVs to resolve the usual chicken/egg problem for game devices (no games means no one buys the console; no console owners means no one develops games).

However, I think that, beyond installed base (seems like it is about 20m units so far, but perhaps some of these are older models? In any event, at 7m units per year, it will reach a respectable number quickly), perhaps the delay is because of the poor reception for the MFi controllers.  And, until Apple can figure out if it wants to sell its own controllers or try to simply set standards, it is holding off on gaming?

A good controller is hard to design but worth getting right.  And a good controller at a reasonable price (especially as it will be compared to the relative cost vs. the AppleTV itself) is even harder.  If we don't see games announced when the installed base of third generation AppleTVs (running at least an A5) is 40m, I will be more convinced that it is a lack of good controllers at a good price that is deferring games.

Separately, the fact that Apple has stuck to A5s for the AppleTV is suggestive of trying to create a meaningful base.  At the same time, the 64bit A7 likely makes more sense for quality gaming and future proofing so, if Apple wants the installed base to be 64 bit, we may have a long wait for games on AppleTV.  I may go buy that AppleTV now that I think about it...

iOS 7 and drowning in contacts

Dear Apple,

If just this one wish for iOS 7 is granted, I'll be pretty happy:

Please let me know which database/source my contact information is drawn from WITHOUT needing to turn off each database individually.  I just want to clean up my multiple instances of John Doe so I consolidate on fewer databases.  Some sort of label, color, or tag would be fine.  Something smarter than I can think of would be even better.  I am drowning in contacts.

Thanks.

Libratone Zipp

This is crazy.  It delivers music over wi-fi using a dedicated network?  Forget connecting to Pandora, etc., even the default music player on an iPhone could be handicapped if it is relying on iTunes in the cloud.  And one could not use any internet-reliant apps (including safari) while playing music.  Unless you feel like using your cellular data connection.

Shame on the NYT (where I first heard about this) for not calling out the severe shortcomings of this device.

iPad Mini

A few not-so-special thoughts on the iPad Mini that put in writing what I would say if someone were to ask whether to buy it:

1) It is really an iPad 2.  Same processor (noting, as anticipated, that the 32nm process allows Apple to stick to the 10 hour battery life specification that they have chosen to be a fundamental iPad feature), same memory, same resolution (but not PPI), etc.  And an iPad 2 is only $70 more.  So if one doesn't own an iPad and is price sensitive, he should just buy a 2 (noting that it may not get supported up to iOS 7 as iPad2 was not given Siri).
2) It's a bit pricey compared to Androids (both branded and unbranded) and iPad 2.
3) But, if one already has an iPad and is looking to add another, the Mini starts getting more attractive vs. a 2 (Siri, better camera).  Especially if "another" means an "auxiliary" iPad - one that is picked up because the other is being used or that is taken on the road, etc.  The distinguishing physical features (weight, size) tied to the same overall experience (iOS 6 with no compromises) might make this the device of choice for out-of-the-house use.
4) This is especially the case for those with a first-generation iPad and a second (iPad 2 or New iPad).  For those who can't quite justify buying a third full-size iPad when the iPad 2 works just fine, the slightly lower price with changed physical attributes could be enough to make this worth buying.
5) I imagine that the $329 price is strong evidence that Google and Amazon sell their tablets at cost based on Apple's 30-40% profit margin target.  This isn't really relevant to a purchase decision other than to suggest that the lower price of the Nexus and Fire shouldn't be seen as a sign of significantly worse quality.  This is #2 stated otherwise and might push a buyer towards one of those two.
6) I suspect that there will be some interesting education pricing (maybe $300) but that the iPod Touch made the $299 price almost impossible to use. So look for reduced prices for the Touch and Mini in 6-9 months.  Meaning that there's no rush to buy a Mini here - especially with an A5 that will be two generations behind an assumed A7 in 12 months or less.
7) I have thought that the product introduction cycle for iPad and iPhone was backwards - although both are suitable gifts, because of the carrier hassles, iPad makes a better gift.  And thus Apple would be better served with fall introductions than spring.  Perhaps the iPad 4th gen introduction is a sign that iPads will now get updated in the fall and phones will transition to the spring.  Now is exactly the right time to make this switch.  The next phone will likely retain the 5's design and so development time is slightly easier (one less major change to manage).  Fall 2013 iPad has a natural design direction (thinner and lighter as the current is heavier and thicker than the 2) and so has a good selling proposition.  Six month upgrade cycles are so fast as to upset purchasers (note those who have asked to return their third-gens because the fourth came out) and perpetually delay purchases.  I note this in the context of an iPad Mini purchase because one should not hold out for an iPad fifth gen in spring 2013 if the choice is between Mini now or fifth gen later.

My takeaway from my advice to myself:
- We have a first-gen that is getting laggy;
- We take the iPad with us all the time and it can be a little burdensome (it has a heavy case);
- We haven't been spoiled with the retina iPad's display (only have an iPad 2 and the first-gen);
- We won't buy a new full-size iPad until it gets thinner and lighter; and
- $329 is not great but still better than $399 for another 2.

So we will buy one for Christmas and strip down the old iPad so it runs a little faster as a pure web + iTunes machine.  Like our old iPhone 3Gs.

A last thought: the iPad 2 may have been retained to do something similar with the MacBooks: create a retina line and a non-retina line as Apple transitions to all-Retina over time.  The continued presence of the 2 without highlighting it as the "base" iPad is weird.

Amazon Phone and Instant Video

The longer Amazon goes without releasing an instant video app for iPhone, the more likely it seems that an Amazon phone is imminent.  If it were far away, it wouldn't make sense to hold off issuing.  And there is no technical reason not to release (as there is an app for the iPad).  So, my only explanation (I'm sure there are others) for no iPhone version is that Amazon wants to have as complete a differentiated feature list as possible.

I think (I could check but am too lazy) that Kindle books also followed the same pattern (Amazon proprietary device first, app version later).

UPDATE: I was clearly wrong.

touch and hover

Hover was a great innovation on the computer - to provide contextual information with a short lag (to avoid mental overload or distraction) nicely matches normal human interaction of hesitation indicating uncertainty (and thus suggesting more information is needed).  Adding hover to touch would be a great innovation for touch screens and make screens more information rich without requiring more real estate.  I'm not sure if it would work best as a literal hover (where a fingertip that is close but not touching is registered as a hover) or  something more prosaic (a three finger touch or similar).  But hover really is missing from iOS and would be valuable. And easier to use than iPhoto's help button (which has the information overload problem).  I wonder how Office will handle this.

crazy iPad stuff

As the iPad already seems to do nearly everything most users need of it, it's hard to think of obvious features to add.  But there are plenty of wacky ones that would be great:
1. e-ink smart cover.  There seemed to be a time when some cared about the use of the iPad as an ebook and its use in sunlight.  Given the exorbitant price for covers (leather smartcover - $70!), couldn't it make sense to have an e-ink cover?  If amazon can sell a kindle for $79, it seems credible that a cover can come in at a reasonable price as a lot of the work would be handled by the iPad itself.  And, as a way to present infrequently updated information, it could even handle some of the widget issues.
2. video-in.  iPad has a great screen that can pull in data from lots of sources.  But all of those sources need to be on-board or, at best, stream from something else using a wifi network.  I'd like to see iPad to iPad streaming so a single video can be played simultaneously on two screens using bluetooth or some sort of parallel ad hoc wifi.  Or, even better, add the ability to allow hardware connections to use the iPad as an auxiliary screen - parents would love this in the car.
3. waterproof.  As tough as the iPad is, we still take great care to keep it from getting wet.  Reading in the bath, using in the kitchen, taking to the beach - all of these work much better if the enclosure is water resistant (I'm assuming water resistance covers sand as well).

kindle killer

How's this for a Kindle Fire Killer?  A fully iPad/iOS compatible tablet computer, 9.7" screen, 16GB, 10 hours battery-life (100+ hour standby).  $300.  Name brand manufacturer (Apple, actually).

AppleTV

If I understand this right, AppleTV now streams/redownloads video as well as audio previously purchased from iTunes.  Which means that (setting bandwidth issues aside), when traveling, I can just bring my AppleTV and plug it into a hotel TV and have my entire (to the extent iTunes purchased) video library available.  I currently use the iPad as a video library but even with 64g, the library is limited.  Too bad hotel bandwidth makes this more hypothetical than useful for now.