Linked List: November 6, 2012

Tuesday, 6 November 2012

Curious Timing 

Circumstantial evidence that maybe Apple has been spitefully withholding Google’s apps from the App Store:

Announced in August, Google’s new Google Search app for iOS has been apparently stuck in Apple’s app approval process for over two months. No longer. Google’s just announced that the new app is out.

One possible explanation: there were technical problems or guideline violations that Google needed to fix. The other: Apple froze it in the queue out of spite, because Google Voice Search compares so favorably to Siri.

Intriguingly, the update finally appeared in the App Store on October 30 — the day after Scott Forstall was ousted.

Jason Fried Is Hiring a Personal iOS Prototyper 

Sounds like a fascinating job.

Curious Spin From Google Regarding iOS Maps 

Michael Grothaus had a piece in The Guardian, wherein unnamed sources from Google claim they think Google’s still-unfinished iOS Maps app is going to be rejected by Apple:

Sources at Google familiar with its mapping plans say they are “not optimistic” that Apple will ever approve a dedicated Google Maps iOS app. Though the app is reportedly in development and should be ready to ship by the end of the year, the sources say their plans are only proceeding in “the unlikely event” that Apple will choose to approve the app.

Why would Apple reject a Google Maps app? There are plenty of mapping apps in the store, including several that use Google Maps APIs as the back end. There are numerous Google apps in the store, including the competes-with-Siri Google Voice Search.

As “proof”, they point to Apple’s curated “Find maps for your iPhone” section of the store, which currently lists no apps using Google Maps for the back end data. But even if Apple wouldn’t list an official Google Maps app in that curated list (and that’s a big if), that’s not the same thing as not allowing it into the App Store in the first place.

If Google submits a Google Maps app that complies with the App Store rules and guidelines, Apple will accept it.

Paul Thurrott Nailed It 

Paul Thurrott:

First, however, I would reminder readers that when Apple first introduced the iPad, I complained that a smaller, 7-inch version would be the more appropriate size for such a device, assuming of course that you intended to use it as I do, as a consumption device. (That is, you’re not going to replace a laptop and connect a keyboard.) Through various Kindle Fire devices and, more recently, the Google Nexus 7, this opinion has held up. And now that I see Apple’s take on it — a slightly wider 7.9-inch variant of the 7-inch tablet — I’m happy to announce, for once, I told you so. This is the ideal iPad.

He’s right. Here’s what he wrote in 2010:

The current iPad is too big and too heavy, and any refresh should use Amazon’s Kindle as a guide: In fact, it should be the exact same size and weight as Amazon’s device if possible. Granted, not everyone is going to want a 7-inch iPad. But this model, positioned squarely between the iPod touch and currently 10-inch iPad, would provide a perfect middle ground, especially for those who will continue to use the iPad for consumption purposes only. (As is the case with virtually all iPad owners today, by the way.) And that would provide an opening for the larger device to turn into more of mainstream computing device.

Claim chowder works both ways. He nailed this one.

Farhad Manjoo, Not a Fan of the Microsoft Surface 

Farhad Manjoo:

The first problem is speed. Everything you do on the Surface takes more time than you expect. When you load an app, switch between apps, launch a Web page, go back to a previous Web page, check your email, and do pretty much anything else, you’ll find yourself waiting a half-second too long. This sounds like nothing, but when you compound that time time across every action on the Surface, the wasted half-seconds add up to an annoying trudge.

Funny how the tables turn. A decade ago, Windows XP was snappy and Mac OS X was the one where things like resizing windows or even pulling down menus felt slow. I think this is a major problem for Microsoft, though, because responsiveness is more important on touchscreen UIs than desktop UIs.