By John Gruber
Dan Provost, Studio Neat:
Tom and I have been reading and thinking about these things for a while, and a few months ago we had a realization. Studio Neat is in a unique position. We are not just app developers, we also sell physical products. Products that are meant to work with the apps in a way that enhances both, as is the case with the Glif and Slow Fast Slow or Frameographer. What if we make apps that are free with “ads”, but the ad is simply for our other products? You know, the products that actually make money?
It was an intriguing enough idea that we decided to try it, first with Slow Fast Slow. As of today, you can download Slow Fast Slow for free. If you are unaware, Slow Fast Slow is our app for manipulating the speed of videos with our interactive timeline. It works amazingly well with the new 240 fps videos on the iPhones 6.
Clever idea from John August: a deck of cards with advice, ideas, and tricks for helping writers get unstuck. Nicely illustrated and designed (including excellent use of Univers). It’s a Kickstarter campaign that aimed small and has exploded way past their original goal. But the coolest thing is they’re donating packs of the cards to youth writing programs, and the more decks they sell, the cheaper each deck becomes to produce, and the more they’ll have to donate.
The project is already funded nine times over, but if they can get a few more thousand backers they’ll enter rarified status as one of the top 1 percent of Kickstarter projects (by backers, not dollars) ever. And you can get in for just $15 — or, just $12 if you want to donate two packs to the youths.
Fred Wilson on Net Neutrality:
This is about something more simple and more important. It is about making sure that the Internet remains open and free for innovation. It is about recognizing that the last mile of the wired and wireless internet is a natural monopoly/duopoly where scale creates massive advantages, just like the electrical grid and the water system. It is about making sure that the massive companies that operate these last mile monopolies don’t use their market power to extract rents from the entrepreneurs, developers, and companies that must go through those networks to reach their customers.
This is about keeping the Internet the way it has been operating for the past twenty years. This is a conservative idea. Don’t change something that has worked so well for so long. Don’t allow the telcos to start inspecting each packet and prioritizing some over others.
Solves the problem where people who switched from iPhone to another platform were unable to receive SMS messages from iPhone users, because iMessage still considered their phone number tied to their iMessage account. The trick was always to disable iMessage on your iPhone before switching your SIM card, but no one ever thought to do that.
When they were designing the “use iMessage instead of SMS when texting from one iPhone to another” feature, I don’t think it ever occurred to anyone at Apple that someone might eventually want to switch from iPhone to another phone.
Stu Maschwitz:
We’re back to the trailer embedded at the top of this post. Maybe you think it’s funny, maybe you don’t. But what I love about it is that someone finally realized that this kind of movie would be not one tenth of a percent better with animated cat mouths.
Dr. Drang, back in March 2013:
If we stayed on Standard Time throughout the year, sunrise here in the Chicago area would be between 4:15 and 4:30 am from the middle of May through the middle of July. And if you check the times for civil twilight, which is when it’s bright enough to see without artificial light, you’ll find that that starts half an hour earlier.
This is insane and a complete waste of sunlight. Good for a nation of farmers, I suppose, but of no value to anyone in our current urban/suburban society except those people who get up and go running before work. And I see no reason to encourage them.
Good bit of follow-up to the DST discussion on this week’s The Talk Show.
Marco Arment:
I was expecting better after years of Kindles being decontented into flimsier, lower-end devices, but I think it’s clear that Amazon just isn’t willing or able to make a premium, high-quality e-reader.
Amazon first made the Kindle in 2007 — it’s not like they’re new at this. The obvious answer is that they just don’t give a shit about making a truly high-quality product.
Jason Snell:
Amazon’s been headed in this direction for a while now. The original Kindle screen was 167 ppi; the Paperwhite upped that all the way to 212 ppi. The Paperwhite’s screen is actually quite good, but the Voyage’s is still noticeably better. To put it in Apple terms, this is really the first Kindle with a Retina display.
Unfortunately, Amazon has invested all of this effort in improved reading technology only to find itself completely at sea when it comes to typography. The Voyage still only offers six typefaces — many of them poor choices for this context — and still force-justifies every line (with no hyphenation!), creating variable-length gaps between words just so the right margin is straight rather than ragged. A device that’s dedicated to words on a page, one with a screen this beautiful, deserves better type options.
It’s depressing that all my typographic complaints from two years ago still stand. Amazon hasn’t improved the typography of Kindles in any way since then, other than by increasing the resolution of the display. I’ll repeat now what I wrote then:
Amazon’s goal should be for Kindle typography to equal print typography. They’re not even close. They get a pass on this only because all their competitors are just as bad or worse. Amazon should hire a world-class book designer to serve as product manager for the Kindle.
They should either devise or license (from Adobe?) a world-class hyphenation-justification algorithm while they’re at it. I’ll never buy another Kindle device until they fix this.
Update: Numerous readers have pointed out that they could just use the excellent open-source hyphenation algorithm from TeX.
President Obama:
I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:
- No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
- No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
- Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
- No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
It saddens me, and almost surprises me, that this issue has become so polarized along party lines.
This tweet from Republican senator Ted Cruz is utter nonsense:
“Net Neutrality” is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
That’s just word soup. The only similarity to the Affordable Care Act is that Obama supports it. There may well be a rational, reasoned argument against Net Neutrality, but Republicans aren’t making it, and neither are the cable companies or cellular providers. Be wary of the side that can’t express their argument in clear, plain, unambiguous language.
Very special guest Merlin Mann returns to the show to talk about Comcast customer service, cable-cutting, Marlins Man (no relation) and his showboating-spectator predecessors, and the state of podcasting today. Also: daylight savings time and Roman numerals. You know, the usual stuff.
Brought to you by:
Matt Miller ran for Congress in west L.A. this year, and wrote about the experience for Politico Magazine. Fascinating, if depressing, “this is what it’s like” perspective:
Campaign fundraising is a bizarre, soul-warping endeavor. You spend your time endlessly adding to lists of people who might be in a position to help. You enter them on a spreadsheet (dubbed “The Tracker”) and sort the names from high to low in terms of their giving potential. You start to think of every human being in your orbit as having a number attached to them. You book breakfasts, lunches, coffees and drinks at which you make the case for your candidacy … and ask for money. Always money. You call dozens of people a day … and ask for money. When people ask how they can help, you mostly ask them for the names of folks you can … ask for money.
I’ve been selling weekly DF RSS feed sponsorships since 2007 — just a hair under 400 consecutive weeks. I’ve never had one quite like this week’s. The sponsor is Meh, a new daily deal site from the founders of Woot. Here’s the sponsored RSS entry they wrote, in its entirety:
Fucking Amazon
I sold Woot to Amazon and they made it shitty. So I quit. Then I got bored.
I started A Mediocre Corporation with a few others from Woot. We just launched a classic daily deal site — only one thing for sale each day. Meh.
Oh, and since you seem to be into RSS, we put one together just for you, at meh.com/deals.rss. Of course you can also just go to meh.com.
The headline — “Fucking Amazon” was so bizarre that when it hit the @daringfireball Twitter account, I got about a dozen replies asking if the account had been hacked.
These guys don’t do marketing like other people do marketing. They really do have amazing prices on the products they sell, but the heart of Meh is what made Woot interesting back in the day: the writing. Click through and see for yourself. My thanks to them for sponsoring DF this week. Also: Don’t miss this great profile of Meh/Woot founder Matt Rutledge in D Magazine from earlier this year.
Kif Leswing, reporting for GigaOm:
Even if you’re uninterested in GT Advanced Technologies, there are a number of details about how much power Apple exercises over its suppliers.
Squiller says that Apple did not ever really enter into negotiations, warning that GTAT’s managers should “not waste their time” negotiating because Apple does not negotiate with its suppliers. According to GTAT, after the company balked, Apple told GTAT that its terms are standard for other Apple suppliers and that GTAT should “put on your big boy pants and accept the agreement.”
GTAT’s take seems to be:
One of the best sites on the web just got better.
Dustin Curtis on Amazon’s hardware aspirations:
It’s an echo chamber. They make a product, they market the product on Amazon.com, they sell the product to Amazon.com customers, they get a false sense of success, the customer puts the product in a drawer and never uses it, and then Amazon moves on to the next product. Finally, with the Fire Phone, customers have been pushing back. You can’t buy a phone and put it in a lonely drawer, never to use it again, like you would with a Fire Tablet. You can’t dupe your customers by selling them a shitty phone, because a phone becomes a part of its user’s identity.
He’s spot-on about whether there’s actually any evidence of more developers going Android-first (spoiler: no), but the real gem in this piece is his dispassionate delineation of Business Insider’s web page design cruft in footnote 1.
David Smith on the imminent release of the first WatchKit SDK:
So to start with we will be given the ability to implement actionable notifications and Glances. This is what I believe we are getting with the SDK release this month.
It will only be later next year that full apps will be possible. It is not a stretch to think that later next year is code for WWDC next June. Likely along with WatchOS (or whatever they call it) version 2.0. There is a delightful symmetry with the history of iPhone OS, where we didn’t get a full SDK until 2.0 (though I’m sure people will similarly jailbreak to get a head-start).
The lead from James Trew’s Engadget review of the new LG G Watch R:
I think it’s fair to say by now that smartwatches are no longer the “hot new thing.” It’s an established product category. The paint might still be a little wet on the whole idea, and some might argue there are areas that still need improving, but these clever timepieces are officially here to stay.
I find this perspective to be staggeringly shallow, but it’s an accurate reflection of what I find so inane about mainstream tech journalism. To say that smartwatches are “no longer the ‘hot new thing’” boggles the mind. They’ve never been the hot new thing. It remains to be seen if they ever will be. “Some might argue there are areas that still need improving”? You don’t say. This is as silly a thing to say in 2014 about watches as the same paragraph would have been about phones in 2004, or PCs in 1984.
Put aside some time to truly savor this piece. So good, in so many ways.
Nick Wingfield, writing for the NYT:
But in a sign of the seismic changes underway in the tech industry, Microsoft, the world’s largest software company, said on Thursday that it would give away a comprehensive mobile edition of Office. The free software for iPads, iPhones and Android tablets will do most of the most essential things people normally do with the computer versions of the product.
Just a few years ago, giving away a full free version of Office would have earned a Microsoft chief executive a visit from a witch doctor. Now, the move is following through on the rallying cry coming from Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s new chief executive, who has pushed cloud and mobile computing as lodestars for the company’s future.
It seems that Microsoft is finally accepting the reality of Office’s market position on smartphones and tablets. To some degree, Office needs to compete with the free Google Docs and iWork, but for many customers, it’s also competing with the idea of simply not using office apps (or using them far less often).
The EFF:
The scorecard includes more than three dozen tools, including chat clients, text messaging apps, email applications, and technologies for voice and video calls. EFF examined them on seven factors, like whether the message is encrypted both in-transit and at the provider level, and if the code is audited and open to independent review. Six of these tools scored all seven stars, including ChatSecure, CryptoCat, Signal/Redphone, Silent Phone, Silent Text, and TextSecure. Apple’s iMessage and FaceTime products stood out as the best of the mass-market options, although neither currently provides complete protection against sophisticated, targeted forms of surveillance. Many options — including Google, Facebook, and Apple’s email products, Yahoo’s web and mobile chat, Secret, and WhatsApp — lack the end-to-end encryption that is necessary to protect against disclosure by the service provider. Several major messaging platforms, like QQ, Mxit, and the desktop version of Yahoo Messenger, have no encryption at all.
I’ve never heard of any of the six apps to which they awarded all seven stars.
My pal Anil Dash served up a dose of his own two-year-old claim chowder.
A wireless speaker with an always-listening Siri/Google Now-style voice-driven AI agent named Alexa. $199, or $99 for Prime members.
Update: It took me a few hours to collect my thoughts on this. First, I think it’s problematic that Echo is anchored in a room. How will anyone get in the habit of using this instead of Siri or Google Now when they can only use it in one room? In their demo video, the family seemingly bought three or four of these things, because they have one in their living room, kitchen, and bedroom. Your phone is in your pocket all the time. And if it is anchored in a room, why not combine it with the Fire TV? I want fewer gadgets in my living room, not more. If Apple did this it’d be a feature of Apple TV, not yet another standalone gadget. (And I think it’d be a great idea for Apple to add “Hey Siri” listening to Apple TV.)
Kyle VanHemert, writing for Wired:
There’s also the risk that material design’s stringent rules could make for an unrelentingly homogenous ecosystem. Nicholas Jitkoff, one of the project’s lead designers, says Google is cognizant that it needs to leave room for third parties to express their own personalities. At one point in the development of material design, Google designers even made mock-ups of third-party apps themselves to see if they felt sufficiently unique.
In case that name doesn’t ring a bell, Jitkoff is the genius who created Quicksilver back in the day.
This is kind of amazing — it’s the full Uber app running as a web app. Really well done. I discovered this via this Designer News comment from Brock Whitten; he’s under the impression that this is what the Uber mobile app is using behind the scenes, that the mobile app is just a thin webview wrapper around this mobile web app. It might be for some platforms, but I don’t think that’s true for iOS — there are a lot of little things that are subtly different between the iPhone app and this website, even when running on an iPhone.
You expect things like this from Samsung and Xiaomi, but not from Lenovo. Just shameless. (The comment thread on this one is worth a skim too, but don’t start reading them with a beverage in your mouth.)
You can’t just expect people to switch to an altogether unfamiliar device because of a corporate sponsorship. iPads are essential tools for many people. Familiarity matters. Microsoft needs to focus on getting people to want to use Surface tablets, not use them because of a corporate sponsorship. This is just embarrassing.
I knew this, but at some point forgot — that sideways-V-with-three-nodes share icon was created by my friend Alex King back in 2007, released under four different open source licenses.
Other than the status bar differences, it pretty much looks exactly the same on iOS and Android. Same colors, same fonts, same icons. New features include OpenTable and Uber integration.
Matias Duarte, “one year ago” (that’s the actual granularity of the time stamps in Google Plus), on why Google’s iOS apps use Google’s share icon:
The share icon Google uses in its properties (and the share icon that Android endorses) is a popular opensource icon and one that we feel well describes the connective nature of sharing. In a sense you could say we believe it’s part of our brand and that Google’s brand is to embrace the open and universal standard.
I keep wanting to say “Android’s share icon” instead of “Google’s share icon”, but the more I think about it, the more clear it is that Google is pushing a meta platform UI style, and Android is just one outlet for it. I don’t think they see their iOS apps as being Android-style, but rather Google-style.
Here’s a video from last year, with three guys from Google talking about how to properly design apps for Android. Starting around the 6:00 mark, their specific example is about sharing icons. They recommend against using the iOS arrow-coming-out-of-a-box sharing icon when designing for Android, and instead using Android’s standard sideways-V icon. So far so good, right? “Follow the idioms and standards of the platform you’re writing for” is good sound advice.
But Google is doing just the opposite with nearly all of their iOS apps. They’re not adhering to iOS design idioms — they’re adhering to their own Material Design style. Look no further than the “sharing” button in the iOS YouTube app — it’s Android’s.
Ron Amadeo, writing for Ars Technica:
We’ve seen widespread complaints about the new “premium” pricing strategy for the new Nexus devices, and to make matters worse, the Nexus 9 didn’t really live up to the “premium” price. With a price cut this deep just a day after launch, we have to wonder if the Nexus 9 is really worth $400. On Google Play, the device is still going for $400, but this is definitely an eyebrow-raising move by HTC.
J2ObjC is a “Java to iOS Objective-C translation tool and runtime”. Google uses it to maintain a cross-platform shared codebase for its mobile apps; internal logic is written once (in Java) and ported to Objective-C using this tool. But it’s only for non-UI code. Here’s why, from creator Tom Ball:
It’s regularly asked why J2ObjC purposely avoids translating UI code; after all, wouldn’t it be wonderful if a tool existed where a developer can drop in Android source and out pops an iOS app? Our usual response is that world-class apps need user interfaces that are tightly integrated with each platform, and that common-denominator attempts to span platforms provide degrades user experiences. As I found when working on Swing many years ago, customers notice the smallest deviations from a platform’s UI standards and generally find them off-putting. But non-compromising UIs are just one of the reasons we focus on translating shared logic.
I wasn’t aware of this; my thanks to Google’s Ray Cromwell for bringing it to my attention. What I find interesting is that Google is (wisely, in my opinion) hand-crafting their iOS UI code for performance reasons and to avoid all the well-known pitfalls of cross-platform UI code, but they’re using their cross-platform “Material Design” visual style. That is, they’re writing native iOS code to create Google-styled apps.
Photographer/filmmaker Doug Menuez is excerpting some fantastic work from his new book, Fearless Genius, on Storehouse this week. Stories and photographs from Silicon Valley in the ’80s and ’90s. Right at the top, a fantastic photo of Steve Jobs. (Via Om Malik.)
Update: A whole page of Steve Jobs photos from the early days at NeXT.
Dan Cederholm:
At small sizes, few will even notice the change, but it feels good having a more refined version in place now, knowing that’ll it hold up to whatever it needs to going forward. Also, the nice thing about refining as opposed to redesigning is that the old and new can easily coexist (temporarily of course).
So subtle, so nice. (Via Brand New.)
New today: updated Android apps for Google Calendar and Gmail. Both look interesting — as Benedict Evans succinctly put it, “Google is reworking Mail and Calendar from database displays to task-led interfaces. I wonder how far they’ll take that.”
And intriguingly, as Google’s new “material” design language evolves, it’s very clearly heading in a different direction than iOS. Talking about flatness is simply too superficial to be a useful discussion. Superficially, iOS and Android seemingly converged toward flatness (and Windows Phone, of course, was there already), but once you get past those surface similarities, all three mobile platforms are evolving in noticeably different ways.
But Google’s “Material Design” isn’t merely the design language for Android, it’s the design language for all the company’s software. One result of this is that Google’s iOS apps feel less and less like iOS apps with each major release. To me, they look and feel like Android apps running on iOS. Android users might disagree with that assessment, as much of what makes a good Android app Android-y is not how the software looks but the way it interacts with the system. But these Google apps certainly don’t look or feel quite like iOS apps. Their brand-new you-need-a-beta-invitation Inbox app is also interesting (I got an invitation last week), but even though it’s a brand-new app, if anything, it feels less like an iOS app than Google’s other iOS apps. For one thing, Inbox uses a blue background for the status bar, which is the system-standard cue to indicate that cellular tethering is engaged. Another example: None of the Google iOS apps I have on my iPhone (Maps, Gmail, Inbox) support the iOS standard swipe-from-left-edge shortcut to go back in the view hierarchy. That’s a two-year-old standard design pattern for iOS, and I find it downright essential with the bigger displays on the new iPhones. (In hindsight, it seems fairly obvious that Apple added this gesture in iOS 7 because they knew then that bigger-screen iPhones were in the pipeline.)
One last thought. Lost in the competition between platforms (iOS vs. Android) is the more philosophical competition between native and in-browser web apps. In the early days of iOS, say, circa 2008-2011, it was easy to conflate these two battles in public debate, because Apple was seen as the primary proponent of native app development, and Google was seen as a proponent of cross-platform web apps. No more. Google today (like Facebook) seems all-in on native apps, at least (again, like Facebook) for post-PC devices. Just a few years ago, I used to see a lot more arguments from web-app proponents that native apps’ dominance on mobile devices would be short-lived. I don’t see so much of that any more.
One reason some people argue in favor of in-browser HTML/CSS/JavaScript web apps is that it’s the last bastion for write-once-run-everywhere. The lament I hear most frequently about mobile development is that if you want to reach the widest possible audience, you have to write at least two apps, iOS and Android. If you include Windows Phone, now you’re up to three. My take has always been: Tough luck. The point of making apps shouldn’t be about making life easier for developers, it’s about making the best possible apps for users. If you value user experience above developer convenience, it’s easy to see why native apps are winning the war. But even on the desktop, with PC browsers, write-once-run-everywhere is often just a pipe dream. Here’s the screen I see when I try to log into the desktop web app version of Google Inbox using Safari on OS X Yosemite.
I don’t think the web version of Inbox is Chrome-only because Google wants to lock people into Chrome. I don’t think it’s about spite. I think it was just a practical decision that fell out of a desire to push the limits of the in-browser web app experience, rather than limit themselves to a common baseline of functionality available across the X top browsers. Cynics surely look at this as the second coming of Microsoft’s IE-only web technologies from the late ’90s, but my guess is that support for additional browsers is coming, that Safari is probably high on that list, and they shipped Chrome-first only because it was the fastest way they could ship. One reason Google created Chrome in the first place was to have a browser they controlled to better enable the sort of web apps they wanted to build.
In short, though, a Chrome-only app from Google — even if only temporary — is not how the world of standards-supporting web apps was supposed to work, in the aftermath of the breakup of Microsoft’s IE hegemony. But I’m not surprised. Practicality trumps idealism in the long-run, and the idea that the post-IE world of web browsers would lead to a world of universal cross-platform software is pretty much the definition of an idealistic crusade.
I see a certain irony in all this. Google is cultivating a single look-and-feel for their apps. But for mobile they’re creating them as separate native Android and iOS apps. But their latest web app for desktop PCs, Inbox, only runs in one browser, Chrome. ★
New promotion from Nokia:
Starting this Friday, if you purchase a Lumia 830 — our affordable flagship phone equipped with the latest version of Windows Phone 8.1 — through AT&T, you’ll get the Fitbit Flex activity tracker for free.
The Lumia handset division is now a Microsoft subsidiary. Microsoft, of course, being the company that released its very own fitness tracking wristband last week.
That’s adorable.
My thanks to Midroll for sponsoring this week’s DF RSS feed. Midroll is an ad network that represents more than 140 podcasts, including The Nerdist, WTF with Marc Maron, Comedy Bang Bang, The iMore Show, Relay.fm, and Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Star Talk Radio. (And yes, that makes this an ad for ads, which sounds funny, but is actually pretty clever if you ask me.)
Midroll’s illustrated whitepaper is full of interesting stats showing how effective podcast advertising is. Here’s one: 63 percent of their surveyed listeners say they bought a product or service after hearing it advertised on a podcast. Here’s another: 97 percent of first-time Midroll advertisers come back again. Podcast ads really do work, and Midroll is a great way to reach a large and diverse audience. Mention Daring Fireball when you contact them, and they’ll take 10 percent off your first campaign.
Nellie Bowles and Dawn Chmielewski, writing for Recode:
“Obviously, you’re not going to read War and Peace on your wrist. But for lightweight interactions, for casual glancing, it’s absolutely fabulous,” he said. “And I think this is the beginning of a very important category. With every bone in my body I know this is an important category, and this is the right place to wear it.”
And because it’s a new product, he said there’s “a childlike awe and curiosity” about what the Apple Watch might do. As an example, he spoke about its alarm-clock function.
“Just yesterday, somebody was saying, ‘Wow, do you know what I just did? I set the alarm in the morning, and it woke just me by tapping my wrist. It didn’t wake my wife or my baby,’” he recounted. “Isn’t that fantastic?”
How exactly is that going to be useful if you need to charge it nightly?
Lovely piece by Kara Swisher at Recode:
With his CEO status now as firm as it has ever been, and the company pretty unassailable, Cook seemed completely ready, criticizing his home state of Alabama in a speech there about its failures in the civil rights arena. “As a state, we took too long to step toward equality,” he said. “We were too slow on equality for African-Americans. We were too slow on interracial marriage, and we are still too slow for the equality for the LGBT community.”
That was this past Monday. At a dinner I attended earlier this week, what he said came up in conversation, and someone wondered what he was up to. With no idea about what he was about to do, I had only one response: “I think we are finally about to meet the real Tim Cook.”
And, while we might have known it all along about him, it’s nice to finally be able to say hello to the entire man.
Eric Slivka, reporting for MacRumors:
Earlier this week, pharmacy chain Rite Aid shut down unofficial support for the Apple Pay and Google Wallet mobile payments systems, resulting in an outcry from users who have been testing out Apple’s new system since its launch on Monday. Rite Aid was not an official Apple Pay partner, but the payments system generally works with existing near field communications (NFC) payment terminals anyway, and many users had had success using Apple Pay at Rite Aid stores early in the week.
It now appears that fellow major pharmacy chain CVS is following suit and as of today is shutting down the NFC functionality of its payment terminals entirely, a move presumably intended to thwart Apple Pay. Google Wallet services are obviously also being affected by the move.
These retailers are part of a group (Merchant Customer Exchange, “MCX”) working on an upcoming mobile payment system called CurrentC. Here’s an article about CurrentC by Debbie Simurda, writing for Mainstreet Inc., a point-of-sale provider:
CurrentC mobile payments platform by Merchant Customer Exchange (MCX) is a mobile wallet being developed by a group of major retailers who want greater control of payments, their mobile brand and mobile customer experience. They want to keep more of their customer data, rather than ceding to technology companies. MCX was established in 2012 and currently consists of 59 participating retailers, many large Tier 1 merchants, across all segments. […]
[Update: Not sure why, but Mainstreet Inc. took down the original article. I’m now linking to Google’s cached version of it.]
Here’s how it’s supposed to work:
The application can be downloaded for free from the App Store and Google Play Store. Available for both iOS and Android devices, it is designed to ‘simplify and expedite the customer checkout process by applying qualifying offers and coupons, participating merchant rewards, loyalty programs and membership accounts, and offering payment options through the consumer’s selected financial account, all with a single scan.”
Using CurrentC mobile payments the point-of-sale displays a QR code for the customer to read with their phone.
The QR code generates the payment token on the smartphone which verifies the shopper’s presence, identity and initiates the transaction between the merchant and the bank.
- The phone connects with the cloud for authorization and sends the approval to the merchant.
CurrentC doesn’t support the contactless Near Field Communications (NFC) used by Apple Pay.
QR codes. Good luck with that. Plus, CurrentC doesn’t even work with credit cards — it only works with prepaid store cards and debit cards tied directly to your bank account. Apple Pay is built atop the credit card system; CurrentC is a (futile, I say) attempt to eliminate credit card.
What Apple gets and what no one else in the industry does is that using your mobile device for payments will only work if it’s far easier and better than using a credit card. With CurrentC, you’ll have to unlock your phone, launch their app, point your camera at a QR code, and wait. With Apple Pay, you just take out your phone and put your thumb on the Touch ID sensor.
Tim Cook was exactly right on stage last month when he introduced Apple Pay: it’s the only mobile payment solution designed around improving the customer experience. CurrentC is designed around the collection of customer data and the ability to offer coupons and other junk. Here is what a printed receipt from CVS looks like. It looks like a joke, but that’s for real. And that’s the sort of experience they want to bring to mobile payments.
If I’m reading this right, and I think I am, these retailers who are shutting down their NFC payment systems are validating that Apple Pay is actually working, that people are actually using it. And remember, it only works with the month-old iPhones 6. Think about what happens a year or two from now when a majority of iPhones in use are Apple Pay enabled.
Think about what they’re doing. They’re turning off NFC payment systems — the whole thing — only because people were actually using them with Apple Pay. Apple Pay works so well that it even works with non-partner systems. These things have been installed for years and so few people used them, apparently, that these retailers would rather block everyone than allow Apple Pay to continue working. I can’t imagine a better validation of Apple Pay’s appeal.
And the reason they don’t want to allow Apple Pay is because Apple Pay doesn’t give them any personal information about the customer. It’s not about security — Apple Pay is far more secure than any credit/debit card system in the U.S. It’s not about money — Apple’s tiny slice of the transaction comes from the banks, not the merchants. It’s about data.
They’re doing this so they can pursue a system that is less secure (third-party apps don’t have access to the secure element where Apple Pay stores your credit card data, for one thing), less convenient (QR codes?), and not private.
I don’t know that CVS and Rite Aid disabling Apple Pay out of spite is going to drive customers to switch pharmacies (Walgreens is an Apple Pay partner), but I do know that CurrentC is unlikely to ever gain any traction whatsoever. ★
The relationship between the iPad and the iPhone, performance-wise, has been hard to predict. I often point out that Apple is a company of annual patterns, often predictable. There’s not much of a pattern with regard to how the iPad and iPhone relate to one another.
Two years ago, when the original iPad Mini debuted, it was roughly a year behind its 9.7-inch sibling, the iPad 4. The original Mini had a non-retina display and A5 system-on-a-chip (SoC). In broad strokes, Apple took an iPad 2 and shrunk it to fit in a much smaller form factor. The iPad 4 had a retina display and an A6 SoC — and double the RAM (1 GB vs. 512 MB), a better camera, etc.
Last year, the new models were roughly all on par CPU/GPU-wise, with the A7 SoC running at about the same speed on all three devices: iPad Air, iPad Mini 2, and iPhone 5S. The Air had one small advantage over the other two devices: it was clocked at 1400 MHz instead of 1300 MHz, which gave it about a 5 percent advantage in CPU performance. The iPhone 5S had unique niceties, though, maintaining its clear position as the king of the iOS hill: a far superior camera and Touch ID, to name just two. The Air had better color gamut than the Mini, but I think it was very fair to say (which I did) that they were more or less the same iPad in two different sizes. The main thing you got when you paid the extra $100 for last year’s Air (versus the comparably-equipped Mini) was the size of the display.
This year, all previous patterns are busted.
The new iPad Mini 3 really just gets two things: Touch ID and a gold case option. Really, that’s it. Everything else about it remains unchanged.
The iPad Air 2, though, is entirely new. It’s a thorough refresh, that not only makes it a nice year-over-year improvement over last year’s iPad Air in just about every single regard, but arguably positions it above the iPhones 6 as the top-tier iOS device, period.
Let’s talk performance. The iPhones 6 still have just 1 GB of RAM. The iPad Air 2 has 2 GB. The iPhone’s A8 SoC has 2 billion transistors and two cores. The iPad Air 2’s A8X SoC has 3 billion transistors. According to Geekbench 3, Apple achieved this by going from two CPU cores to three. And the Geekbench benchmark results bear this out:
| Device | Single Core | Multi Core |
|---|---|---|
| iPad Air 2 | 1,813 | 4,539 |
| iPhones 6 | 1,603 | 2,866 |
| iPad Air 1 | 1,472 | 2,664 |
| iPad 4 | 770 | 1,402 |
| 11-inch MacBook Air (2011) | 1,773 | 4,137 |
| 11-inch MacBook Air (2012) | 2,560 | 5,170 |
| 13-inch MacBook Pro (2014) | 3,518 | 7,438 |
(The iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus are so nearly identical in Geekbench results that I simply averaged the two together under “iPhones 6”.)
The Air 2 is noticeably faster than the iPhones 6 in single-core performance, but it’s simply in an altogether different ballpark in multi-core. I couldn’t get an answer from anyone at Apple regarding whether Geekbench is correct that it’s a three-core CPU,1 but the multi-core results certainly bear that out.
It is remarkable not only that the new iPad Air 2 is faster than the iPhones 6, but also that it’s faster than a three-year-old MacBook Air, and within shooting distance of a two-year-old MacBook Air. It’s more than half as fast as today’s top-of-the-line 13-inch MacBook Pro, especially in multi-core. (Let’s not get carried away regarding this apparent third core. Single-core performance is a better measure for most of the things typical consumers do on an iPad. But still.)
Geekbench is just a benchmark, but I think it’s a fair one for a general comparison of “how fast” machines are, including machines that run entirely different operating systems.
But Geekbench only measures CPU performance — year-over-year, the iPad Air 2 is even more impressive in terms of GPU performance. Apple claims, “The A8X chip has an astonishing 2.5 times the graphics performance of the A7 chip,” and from what I’ve seen, that’s true.
The iPad is no longer following in the wake of the iPhone, performance- and specs-wise. It’s forging ahead. With 2 GB of RAM, it’s a year ahead of the iPhone (we hope) in that department. Performance-wise it’s fast enough to replace a MacBook Air for many, many people. The demos that Apple chose for last week’s event — the Pixelmator image editor and Replay real-time video editor — emphasize that. Those are performance-heavy tasks, and the iPad Air 2 handled them with aplomb.
The other factor is Metal, Apple’s new low-level graphics API, which is (at least for now) iOS-only. Apple promotes it as being 10 times faster than OpenGL. For games and creative productivity apps that take advantage of Metal — and developers of both seem to be buying in — the iPad Air 2 might be on even footing today with the MacBook Air. It really is desktop-PC-level performance.
In short, I don’t think performance is any longer a reason to buy a MacBook Air instead of an iPad Air. The choice comes down to form factor and personal preference. This marks a turning point.2
The original iPad in 2010 didn’t even have a camera — not on the front, not on the back. Now, the iPad Air 2 has both a FaceTime camera and a rear-facing (“iSight”) camera that, to my eyes, produces images with quality somewhere between that of the iPhone 5 and 5S. It suffers in low light compared to the 5S, but in sunshine, it’s pretty close.
Apple didn’t anticipate people loving to use their iPads as cameras. I certainly didn’t either. But they do, and now Apple is embracing iPad photography. And for whatever the iPad Air 2 camera lacks optically, it makes up for many things through software. Again, I think the Pixelmator/Replay demos were carefully chosen — not only did they show off the Air 2’s computational performance, they exemplified the sort of apps you might want to use if you’re using the iPad as a camera. Shoot, edit, filter, publish and share — all from one device. You can do the same from an iPhone too, but other than the optical quality of the camera (where the iPhone 6 still has a noticeable edge), the iPad is the better machine for everything else. It’s faster, and its bigger display is better for composing new shots and examining/editing the shots you’ve already taken.
And then there’s the social aspect. The iPad camera has spawned an entirely new class of applications for teachers and coaches. Apple showed a clip of Coach’s Eye during the event last week, to name one very popular example. The iPad’s size enables a teacher and pupil, a coach and player, to share the display in a way that isn’t practical on a phone (even the 6 Plus).
When the iPad debuted in 2010, the primary question was what sort of things would we want to use them for instead of our iPhones and laptops. The answers vary by taste. Email, web browsing, watching video — a lot of the things we used to do on phones and laptops we now do on tablets.
Using the camera, in conjunction with smart software, as an instructional aid is something else: brand-new territory. Something only a tablet is suited for.
The iPad 3 was the first to go retina, and it was glorious to behold. But at 1.46 pounds, it was not so glorious to just plain hold. Not only was that 50 grams heavier than the iPad 2, it was 0.6 mm thicker. Apple products get thinner and lighter over time, not thicker and heavier. (The iPad 4, released just six months after the 3, was the same size and weight. It had better performances and switched the 30-pin adapter (gross, right?) for Lightning.)
Two years later, the iPad Air 2 is an entire half pound lighter than the iPad 3 was (0.98 pounds, down from 1.46) and 33 percent thinner (6.1 mm, down from 9.4 mm). A one-third reduction in thickness and weight in just two and a half years — with the same battery life, incredible performance increases (see above), and vastly improved cameras. The camera quality deserves special recognition, because, all things considered, the image quality of a camera tends to be inversely proportional to the distance between the lens and the sensor. (That’s why the iPhone 6 has a lens that juts out from the back of its frame.)
Yet the iPad Air 2 got thinner and its camera quality has increased. Part of that is that now that Apple is taking iPad photography more seriously, they’re using more expensive camera components. But part of it is due to things other than the camera lens and sensor. Face detection for auto-focus goes through the A8X’s image signal processor (presumably, the same ISP as on the iPhones 6), and the ISP plays a major role in noise reduction, burst mode, slo-mo, and more.
The end result is a markedly improved iPad, just in terms of it being an object you hold in your hands. It really does feel like we’re getting close to just holding a piece of glass. It’s very thin, very light, and very comfortable to hold. The improved display is a noticeable improvement over all previous iPads. Retina iPhone displays have been laminated to the glass touch screen ever since the first retina model (the iPhone 4, back in 2010). It really does feel like the difference between pixels-under-glass and pixels-on-glass. Now the iPad Air 2 offers the same thing, and it’s gorgeous. Even better, the iPad Air 2 one-ups the iPhone 6, with an anti-reflective coating. It’s quite noticeable, and very welcome. On a dark screen, it’s the difference between being able to see a reflection of my own face on the display, and being able only to see a silhouette of myself. I hope and expect this anti-reflective coating to spread to next year’s new iPhones and iPad Mini. The anti-reflective coating appearing on the iPad Air 2 first is another sign that the “new” iPhone is no longer the recipient of all new model-year improvements.
One other change is worth noting in the Air 2: Apple removed the “side switch” above the volume buttons. It was an on/off toggle that could be set to function as either a silent switch or a rotation lock (configurable in Settings). Now, it’s gone, and both those functions can only be controlled via the swipe-up-from-the-bottom-of-the-screen Control Center. I only ever used it as a silent switch, but I did use it. I’m curious what Apple’s rationale was for getting rid of it, because I thought it was useful.
Everything Apple is promoting about the Air 2 is true, both in terms of what you can objectively measure, and in terms of how it feels to use it. It’s thinner, lighter, faster, and has a better display and better camera. And, yes, Touch ID is great, especially if you’ve been using it for the last year on your iPhone.
I don’t think I’m going to buy one, though.
For the last two years, my day-to-day iPad has been a Mini. I like the Mini form factor so much that I switched to the original non-retina model in late 2012 even after having used the retina iPad 3 for six months or so. In terms of visual acuity, that was painful. In terms of hold-ability, though, it was a huge win. Last year I didn’t hesitate to stick with the Mini form factor once it went retina.
I spent a lot of time in this review comparing the new Air 2 to the iPad 3/4. I think that’s fair, because normal people aren’t supposed to even consider replacing their iPads on an annual basis. And from what we’re learning as the iPad era marches on, iPad users aren’t even upgrading them as often as they do their iPhones. They’re more like PCs, where people use them for several years. Anyone upgrading from an iPad 3/4 to an iPad Air 2 is going to be delighted. Anyone upgrading from an iPad 2 or original iPad is going to be amazed.
If you already have an iPad Air, it’s obviously a closer call. From the outside, Touch ID looks like the biggest change, but I’d actually rank it behind the improved display (lamination and anti-glare) and CPU/GPU performance in terms of how big a difference it makes in use. And the biggest change of all might be the reduction in weight and thickness. If you hold your iPad for long stretches of time, it really makes a difference.
But I still prefer the Mini form factor. I’m not saying it’s better in general — only that it’s better for me, personally. More than anything else, I mostly read on my iPad. When I do type on my iPad, I tend to do it iPhone-style with just my thumbs. For reading, the Air comes close to being a better iPad for me. After just four days of testing it, my iPad Mini already feels a little thick. But for typing, I’m far more comfortable with the Mini.
Which brings me to the new iPad Mini 3. Apple loaned me one of those to test alongside the Air 2. There’s really not much to review, though. Touch ID and the gold color option really are the only differences from the last year’s iPad Mini 2. Here’s what I wrote last year, in my review of the then-new iPad Air and iPad Mini 2:
So the iPad Air is an excellent year-over-year update over the iPad 4 — double the performance, and a serious reduction in size and weight. But the retina iPad Mini is an almost unbelievable year-over-year update — four times the performance, a retina display (which therefore means four times the pixels), and yet no appreciable difference in size or weight. This is the iPad Mini I expected to see next year, in 2014. But here it is today, in my hand.
Turns out I was right — we did get this year’s iPad Mini a year early. And now we still have it. But that’s OK. I think the sort of person who prefers the Mini form factor is less likely to be using their iPad in the ways that the iPad Air 2 is improved. (Anecdotally, most iPad photographers I see in the real world are using 9.7-inch iPads, not the Mini.) And the sort of iPad users who are pushing the performance limits of the platform are the sort of people who’ve preferred the 9.7-inch models all along. In short, I think the Mini really is more of a pure consumption device, and the Air is more of an alternative to a MacBook.
I’ve seen criticism that Apple now offers too many iPad models to choose from. The array of iPads for sale — three generations, two sizes, four storage tiers (16/32/64/128), and cellular-vs.Wi-Fi-only — is certainly not simple. But I don’t think it’s that tough for a would-be iPad buyer to decide. I’d say there are only four questions:
If you answer yes to question 3, you have to answer another question: Which carrier? But with Apple SIM, that’s no longer a long-term commitment unless you choose Verizon.
Question 4 is the tricky one, because you have to evaluate multiple factors, all of which cost additional money: performance, Touch ID, thinness/weight, and of course storage capacity.
It’s not so much that Apple has complicated the iPad lineup, as that they’ve expanded it downward into lower price points. They now have models ranging from $249 (the A5-based original iPad Mini, a.k.a. the zombie iPad) to $829 (the 128 GB cellular Air 2). At any given price point, there aren’t many decisions to make beyond color. I don’t know that that’s any harder a decision to make than buying a MacBook, especially once you factor in the various build-to-order upgrades that MacBooks offer.
On that last point, I’ll reiterate what I wrote a few weeks ago regarding the iPhone lineup. Apple should not be selling 16 GB iPads. The starting tier for typical consumers should be 32 GB. There’s just not enough usable space on a 16 GB iOS device to do the things Apple has worked so hard to make easy to do. High-def slo-mo video? Panoramic photos? Console-quality games? Those things all consume large amounts of space.
I heard from a few DF readers in education and the enterprise who said that their organizations buy 16 GB iPads and they all have plenty of free space to spare. It’d be a waste to force them to buy 32 GB models. I have no doubt that’s true. And I have no doubt there are millions of consumers for whom 16 GB is more than enough storage. But I don’t think it’s enough for the majority of typical iPad users, and that’s what matters.
I also understand the product marketing angle. That there are a lot of people who will look at the 16 GB models, see that they can get four times the storage for just $100 more, and buy the 64 GB model instead — when they would’ve bought the base model if it were 32 GB. I get it. There’s no doubt in my mind it’s good short-term business sense to go with a 16/64/128 lineup instead of 32/64/128. But Apple is not a short-term business. They’re a long-term business, built on a relationship of trust with repeat customers. 16 GB iPads work against the foundation of Apple’s brand, which is that they only make good products.
Apple has long used three-tier pricing structures within individual product categories. They often used to label them “Good”, “Better”, and “Best”. Now, with these 16 GB entry-level devices, it’s more like “Are you sure?”, “Better”, and “Best”. Fine, keep the 16 GB models around for expert business and education buyers who know that they really don’t need more storage space. But don’t put devices on the tables in Apple retail stores that you wouldn’t recommend as a good product and good value to typical customers.
If you’re on the fence about buying a 16 or 64 GB new iPad, especially the Air 2, I strongly encourage you to spring the extra $100 for the 64 GB. You’ll thank me later. ★
“Apple claims that the A8X has three billion transistors, compared to two billion on the iPhone 6’s A8. Is that because it includes a third core?”
Pause. “We’re not talking about that sort of detail regarding the A8X.”
“Would you call that an interesting question?”
Laughs. “You always ask interesting questions.” ↩
These CPU and GPU performance gains are all thanks to Apple’s own in-house chip design team. And Metal is all-Apple. They’re not sharing these chips or APIs with anyone else. It could well turn out to be a temporary historical blip, but at the moment, it looks like one company, Apple, is single-handedly pulling away from the entire rest of the industry in terms of computing performance and efficiency. ↩