Tag Archives | Apple. iPhone

TomTom Puts the U.S. on Sale

GPS kingpin TomTom, which released its much-awaited iPhone version back in August for $99.99, has a new version out today for $49.99. The difference? The original edition (which remains available) covered the U.S. and Canada, and the new one is U.S.-only. It may not technically qualify as a price cut, since you get less for your money. But it does feel like a telling reaction to the extreme price sensitivity in iPhone appland, as well as the arrival of cheap GPS apps such as MotionX ($3.99 to buy, then $3.99 for any month when you use it).

Next question: What happens to TomTom and Navigon and AT&T and Networks and Motion and even MotionX if Google brings its free version of Google Maps with turn-by-turn directions from Android to the iPhone?

2 comments

Apple Sues Nokia. Who’s Next?

““We’re very, very comfortable with where we are competitively…we like competition, as long as they don’t rip off our [intellectual property]…and if they do, we’ll go after them.”

–Apple COO Tim Cook, January

Early this year, there was much speculation on the Web about the possibility of Apple suing Palm over the Pre’s use of an iPhone-like multi-touch interface. So far, the two companies have stayed out of court. But Apple has now responded to last month’s Nokia lawsuit over networking patents by countersuing the Finnish giant. It denies that it’s infringed Nokia’s patents–but says that Nokia has violated a passel of Apple user-interface patents. Intentionally. And unashamedly.

Continue Reading →

5 comments

This Droid Ad Can’t Be About the iPhone. Right?

Cnet’s Chris Matyszczyk thinks this new Verizon Droid ad is slagging the iPhone. Watch it, then tell me what you think:

I (mostly) like the Droid and like its positioning as a somewhat homely but useful phone. And yes, I agree that the phone under attack in the ad looks an awful lot like a white iPhone 3GS, although the spot cunningly never shows you it from the front:

But the iPhone is anything but a “digitally clueless tiara-wearing beauty pageant queen,” and–unless the ad is taking a very oblique swipe at the thinness of AT&T’s 3G network–it isn’t slow. (Actually, its browser seems to do quite well in comparison to the Droid’s, though neither makes me think of sawblades going through bananas.) I have no idea what it means to be digitally clueless, but I’m positive that the iPhone isn’t. And I can’t believe that Verizon would think that any prospective customer who hasn’t been hibernating in a cave somewhere would buy the notion that the iPhone is clueless in any meaningful respect. (Imperfect? Hell, yeah–but not clueless.)

If the ad’s about the iPhone, it might as well toss in a claim that the iPhone supports death panels for old people, or paroled a vicious murderer, or assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. So I choose to think it’s about pretty phones in general. You know–the digitally clueless ones.

Let’s end this with a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: “Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.”

22 comments

Department of Misleading Headlines

Scott Moritz, at TheStreet.com:

Um, read the story, and you’ll find it presents no evidence that Apple is contemplating a T-Mobile deal. All you get is an analyst speculating that Verizon isn’t going to get the iPhone soon, and speculating that if Apple wants to end AT&T’s iPhone exclusivity it might logically cut a deal with T-Mobile. But it’s all guesswork.

The analyst says that he expects that a Verizon iPhone will appear only in 2011, and that it’ll use a 4G LTE data connection rather than Verizon’s current EVDO network. Sounds logical enough. If you assume that Verizon’s current spree of iPhone bashing means it’s not going to announce an Apple deal immediately, it feels more and more likely that Apple and Verizon will skip the dead-end technology an EVDO iPhone would bring and jump directly to an LTE model. And it’s going to be 2011 before an LTE iPhone makes sense.

Or so I think. I cheerfully concede that I could be wrong. Which is why this post isn’t titled “No Verizon iPhone Until 2011…”

2 comments

Hey, Apple: Why Not Trust Your Most Trustworthy iPhone Developers?

Apple has the opportunity to fast track submissions from its iPhone App store development partners. Partners that follow best practices should be given the benefit of the doubt to accelerate the screening process.

Earlier today, my colleague Harry McCracken wrote about a BusinessWeek interview with Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice-president for worldwide product marketing concerning its App Store vetting process.

The gist of it is that Apple views itself as a retailer stocking its shelves with quality goods. It still needs to work on its vendor relations.

Schiller said that there are now over 100,000 applications in the App Store, and Apple is receiving over 10,000 submissions a week. Roughly 90% of the submissions that it rejects are simply buggy; the remaining 10% are “inappropriate” — containing malware, objectionable content, or are intended to help users break the law.

Apple believes that developers are happy about its “safety net,” and that may be true, but there have been very vocal exceptions. Facebook developer Joe Hewitt famously protested against the control Apple is exerting over its hardware, and argued that Apple is setting a “horrible precedent.”

However, the end result is that people trust the applications that they purchase in the App Store. That is an important part of the iPhone user experience. But Apple should give trusted developers more leeway — they make the App Store what it is. Apple needs their products.

I am reminded of the old Saturday Night Live sketch with Dan Aykroyd touting dangerous children’s toys such as “Johnny Switchblade,” “Bag O’ Glass,” and the “Chainsaw Bear.” It was hyperbole to the max. By Apple’s own omission, the vast majority (>90%) of developers are good partners that wouldn’t make disreputable apps, and they shouldn’t be treated as such.

My family owns a manufacturing business, and sells products that have International Organization for Standardization (ISO) approvals. ISO sets manufacturing standards, and audits the plants to guarantee that those standards are being met. Apple could do the same by outlining the best practices and tests that its developers should follow when they make software.

More transparency and partnership would go a long way. It is a huge disincentive to invest in the development of an app only to see it be rejected. Apple can be a better partner, and still protect the sanctity of its “shelves.”

9 comments

Apple Fights Back Against Verizon Ads

Nobody likes being compared to a misfit toy. So it’s not surprising that a couple of new iPhone ads feel like indirect responses to Verizon’s recent iPhone/AT&T attack ads (here they are in a John Paczkowski post at All Things Digital).

Unlike Verizon and AT&T’s own salvos so far, Apple’s are snark-free. (I’m not sure if there’s any secret explanation, but Apple’s Mac ads are about 90% snark and its iPhone ones are relentlessly upbeat.) The new iPhone spots just point out an excellent feature of the AT&T network that’s easy to miss unless you know it’s there: You can make a call and use the Internet at the same time. Which I do frequently, and which I’d miss if I switched to Verizon…

2 comments

Phil Schiller on the iPhone App Store

BusinessWeek’s Arik Hesseldahl scored an interview with Apple marketing honcho Phil Schiller, focused on the wildly popular, ever-controversial iPhones App Store. It’s a good read and I’m glad Schiller feels the need to address the topic in public. It’s completely true that Apple’s hardcore approach to app approval isn’t without its upsides–there are certainly fewer insanely buggy iPhone apps than there would be if iPhone app distribution was a free-for-all, and owners of non-jailbroken iPhones don’t have to worry much about stuff like this. Schiller also hints that Apple may reconsider its silly refusal to approve apps that depict the iPhone or other Apple products to help consumers figure out how to use them.

But this metaphor that Schiller used didn’t comfort me much:

Schiller compares Apple’s role to that of a retailer determining which products line store shelves. “Whatever your favorite retailer is, of course they care about the quality of products they offer,” he says. “We review the applications to make sure they work as the customers expect them to work when they download them.”

Of course, Apple has every right to decide which apps are available on its own App Store. But Apple’s role is really that of a monopolistic distributor , not a retailer. If the company permitted true competition–Cydia is too arcane and sketchy to count–the controversy would end in a nanosecond.

I keep coming back to Steve Jobs’ explanation of the approval process during the Stevenote in which the App Store was unveiled.

Sounded good to me then; still sounds good to me today….

3 comments

Flook, a Location-Aware Microphotoblogging App for iPhone

I’ve been playing with Flook, a clever new program that’s now available on Apple’s iPhone App Store. Conceptually, it’s very, very simple: You use it to capture images with your phone and attach brief titles and captions to them. Flook then turns the image, title and caption into a full-screen combo it calls a card, uploads them to its servers, geotags them, and lets other Flook users browse through them.

The most obvious way to browse through Flook cards is to peruse ones that are near your location, in case they give you an idea of something nearby to see or do. But you can also view ones from people you follow, or new ones, or the whole shebango of cards from around the world. Flook also creates some local-information cards of its own, by sucking in content from sources such as Upcoming.org and formatting it. Zipping your way though cards is easy, fun, and addictive–the experience has a StumbleUpon-feel of serendipity to it.

Even more than just browsing other folks’ cards, I like the idea of using Flook for tiny acts of photojournalism. The service can can automatically send out tweets about your new cards. Which means that I can consider using it to tell the world about quirky stuff I run across and photograph as I travel around town, throughout the country, and around the world. (Up until now I’ve just been uploading my pictures to TwitPic.)

Flook (which is also available in a traditional Web-based version for PCs and Macs) is free, and currently free of ads. Like every other company involved in geographically-aware apps, the one behind Flook thinks there’s lots of potential in eventually targeting its users with ads that know where they are. In the case of Flook, one of the company’s founders told, those ads might be in the form of sponsored cards that tell you about things like discounts at stores you’re near.

This service could use something like Facebook Connect integration to help you find friends who are already using it. But it’s entertaining as is–and easier to show than explain. After the jump, some images from the iPhone app.

Continue Reading →

3 comments

Stud or Dud? This iPhone App’s a Dud!

Back in September at the DEMO conference, public-information company Intelius launched DateCheck, an impish iPhone app that ran an instant background check to tell you if prospective dates had criminal backgrounds or other undesirable qualities. Now DateCheck has a competitor: Intelius rival PeopleFinders is introducing Stud or Dud?, another impish iPhone app that runs instant background checks on prospective dates. Ones that look for criminal records, sex-offender status, address histories, marriage status, property ownership, and more.

By way of introduction to Stud or Dud, a PeopleFinders representative sent me a report on…me. It seemed to say I sometimes go by the name Samuel McCracken (nope–that’s my pop!), had me at an address I haven’t lived at in seventeen years, and listed three phone numbers, none which were current. It had me as single, which is correct, although it was (logically enough) unaware of the relevant fact that I’m engaged. At least it got my age right.

Continue Reading →

3 comments

The Apple iPhone App Store Approval Process: A Really Inefficient Route for Getting to the Right Decision

Bobble RepBobble Rep, the iPhone application that lets you find and contact your senators and members of congress and which depicts them as bobblehead dolls, is no longer an app non grata. After initially rejecting the program, Apple has done an about face and pushed it through to the App Store. (On my iPhone, at least, it’s profoundly hobbled by error messages I’ve never seen before–but the program is only 99 cents, so I can live with the disappointment.)

The tale of Bobble Rep–app is submitted, app is rejected, controversy ensues, app is accepted–is a remarkably common one on the App Store. Yes, I know that the fast majority of programs submitted are quietly accepted without incident. But of the ones that are initially nixed, a high percentage seem to make it into the store eventually.  (Offhand, the only apps I wish I could get that Apple has denied me are Google Voice and the 3G-capable version of SlingPlayer; if there’s a bad guy in the latter instance, it’s AT&T, whose terms of service specifically prohibit apps that reroute TV over its network.)

Apple, in other words, usually manages to do the right thing–it’s just that it sometimes does it after doing the wrong thing and getting slapped around in the blogosphere. Wouldn’t it be more efficient for everyone concerned–and less embarrassing for Apple and the iPhone platform–if it figured out it should really approve these apps before rejecting them and sending so many people into a tizzy? I’m a mere bystander, and I can usually tell which rejected apps Apple is going to reverse itself on. Can’t someone within Apple figure out the same thing, and just fast-forward to the correct outcome?

9 comments