Apple

Samsung or iPhone? A screenshot worth a thousand tweets

screenshots of maps apps on Samsung and iPhone

(Okay, maybe not a thousand. But a lot!)

So last night, I saw that John Gruber had favorited one of my Flickr photos from 2008: a screenshot of the Google Maps app on the iPhone. Hmm, what was that about?

It turns out quite a bit. I found Gruber's Daring Fireball post pointing out what appears to be Samsung's alteration and reuse of a screenshot image I created in 2008. You see, three years ago I blogged about iPhone apps I thought were a big deal — "game changers." (The post was cross-posted on BlogHer, where it got noticed.) Scroll down to see my excitement then about the ever-useful maps.app, with screenshot in question.

Some nice sleuthing there, John! I tweeted about it and went to bed.

New details in the sunlight

This morning greeted me with more references as this issue caught on. Retweets. The Next Web. Gizmodo. All the scraper sites that pull from them. (I haven't done a thorough search.)

Embarrassing for Samsung, if true. I'll leave judgment to you. But if it's true, it's also a violation of copyright and the Creative Commons license. Not that it's any skin off of my nose. But it's never good for image when marketing gets caught hawking apparent bulloney. (I can't help but wonder why a marketing department would not use screenshots from its own device? Would the Samsung version of the app really so unappealing?)

"The world has infinite knowledge," writer Jascha Kessler would tell his students, meaning that you really need to write what you know and research what you don't know, because the readers will see your bullshit. Of course, that's all the more true now in the web world, where search, social links, and literally a world full of readers are archiving, contextualizing, tagging, bookmarking, and remembering what you put out there. I'm not sure how Gruber found the image match. One of the image search engines, possibly?

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."

Setting aside Picasso's original meaning for the moment, l leave you with the late Steve talking about design in 1994.

Good publicity out of the bad

Oh, and by the way, Efrain's II is indeed the best Mexican food in Boulder. I'm glad they got some free indirect publicity from all this. The green chile is to die for.

Video professionals, just get a (new) life already! (Apple isn't looking at you.)

The new Final Cut Pro X may be cool. Just don't call it "Pro."

That's the message coming from Apple fanboys and apologists, going by the blogs out there, regarding the limitations of Apple's "update" to Final Cut Pro. Pick just about any thread on the Creative Cow forums and you'll see masses of discontent, frustration, anger, resignation ... and not one iota of joy.

Brian Charles:

In a final death blow, Apple has removed the link to the Pro Apps updater. Excellent news for those who recently purchased Studio 3....

Marvin Holdman:

Still a bit miffed at the fact that they expect me to "know" that their "upgrade" won't open FCS3 projects. Still say this product should NOT be named Final Cut anything, it is NOT Final Cut.

and Peter Blumenstock:

Just got my refund email as well.
Basically a standard email as seen elsewhere, with the exception that it noted that it took them longer to respond because "we have been experiencing higher than expected volumes...".
Anyone here who is angry should make the step and ask for a refund. Not that Apple would care but at least you have stood up.

Russell Lasson:

I think that things are going to get better, I just don't know if they'll get better fast enough for pro users to stay on the bandwagon. I also don't know if Apple's way of making things better is the same as what the pros think would make it better. We'll see.

Ken Nicholson points up that for many of us this is deja vu all over again. (10 years ago, Autodesk, who bought Discreet*, killed off the popular and growing Edit* non-linear editor. For many of us, that's when we first moved to Final Cut. Apple at the time was hiring up hot software talent from competitors to make FCP into a rocking professional system. We dared hope. Silly us.)

[D]id we bring the Discreet edit* disease here?

I feel so guilty. I apologize for EOLing FCP. I'm infected....

Seriously, this really is an EOL for Final Cut. Just the simple fact of not being able to import projects from V7 is enough to brand it with the death tag. Now we have to keep our current version online for who knows how long whether we migrate (I will NEVER say upgrade in regards to the new software) or not. This is it for everything we've done with FCP (all the FCS apps for that matter) to date. Don't misplace those install disks folks...

We had a good 10-year run. We've been here before. Meanwhile, Avid has been around all this time. Hello, Avid, remember me?

"Professional editors should...."

In today's column, David Pogue tells us essentially to shut up and just reinvent how professional video is done:

The Bottom Line: Apple has followed the typical Apple sequence: (1) throw out something that’s popular and comfortable but increasingly ancient, (2) replace it with something that’s slick and modern and forward-looking and incomplete, (3) spend another year finishing it up, restoring missing pieces.

Professional editors should (1) learn to tell what’s really missing from what’s just been moved around, (2) recognize that there’s no obligation to switch from the old program yet, (3) monitor the progress of FCP X and its ecosystem, and especially (4) be willing to consider that a radical new design may be unfamiliar, but may, in the long term, actually be better.

This, of course, ignores the realities of professional video — the needs for media control, the no-brainer need to be able to import existing projects for (re)working, the needs for systems like videotape which is still the vastly dominant medium of delivery in professional video and television....

C'mon, tapeheads, collaboration is so 20th century!

To me, one great irony is that Final Cut Pro X, with no real ability to import projects or even easily work on distributed media files, forces a silo around the video editor. Collaboration? What? How old school! This is just the opposite of the trend happening in the creative arts. Collaboration is on the upswing. And if there's one thing that video and film have been all along, it's collaborative. Just look at the credits at the end of you favorite movies and television shows. Those aren't wall posts, those are credits for collaborating on the project.

The inability for Final Cut Pro X to import existing Final Cut Pro projects, though, is just mind boggling. Imagine Microsoft releasing a new version of Word that would not read any existing Word files. Imagine a new Adobe Photoshop that will ignore all existing Photoshop files. Imagine a new interactive development environment that refuses to load code created in another system. That's what we're talking about here.

My own sense is that Apple really doesn't give a crap. Look at the pricing. It's clear they're in a race to the bottom. How much of Apple's market share is comprised of video professionals who aren't lone-gun freelancers working mostly on web projects? My guess is probably not many. What does Apple care if professionals move to Avid or Adobe? They're after the bigger market, and are really upselling the prosumers and amateurs who fancy themselves film geniuses enough to blow $300 on something that is the very cool video tool for the solo artist.

Leave the collaborative tools — and the collaboration — to the professionals.

Me, I'll peek at FCPX every now and then. Meanwhile I'll stick with Final Cut Pro Studio, and watch for Avid migration promotions.

I pant, you pant, we all pant for iPad?

iPad
Other devices such as the WePad will offer similar kinds of features. In the end, it's about the content.

There's a whiff of desperation in the air. The iPad is now supposed to be the white knight that can save publishing. Is it?

I wrote before how the iPad will define a new market for consumer technology. There's no question of the appeal of a simple, extremely portable device with a decent-sized screen to peruse news headlines and browse magazine articles. But the mainstream media hype seems perhaps overblown a bit.

Despite the restrictions, the iPad's full color touchscreen is seen as a game changer for media companies that have long struggled to make money off digital content, which most consumers expect to get for free or at a very low cost.

Book publishers see a new chance to get their electronic offering right -- and win more bargaining power if the iPad emerges as a viable rival to Amazon.com Inc's Kindle.

"We have all struggled in this industry to find an online model that works successfully in terms of content and the consumer's propensity to pay," Penguin Books Chief Executive John Makinson told a recent media conference in London.

And then there's the mild FUD, such as in USA Today, who claims to have "your questions answered":

Q: The iPad doesn't run Flash, popular software from Adobe that powers many Internet videos. Isn't that a huge oversight?

A: Consumers are likely to find the iPad's lack of Flash incredibly frustrating.

But Apple thinks Flash is buggy and prone to crashing computers. It wants media presented in the alternative HTML5 format. That's fine, but if you bring home the iPad this weekend, you'll find many sites urge you to "Download the latest Adobe Flash Player." If you try, it won't work.

"Incredibly frustrating"? That strikes me as a bizarre claim. I've been finding more and more that sites depending upon Flash tend to be a few years out of date. And when it comes to video, the iPad, like the iPhone and Android, has a native YouTube application to play those videos. The odd sites that have other Flash at work are sites I simply tend to ignore and move on from. It's only "incredibly frustrating" if you feel some deep need to get at content presented by a Flash widget on a site (or a site built entirely in Flash). Absence is Flash is nothing new to to anyone who has a phone with a web browser.

Q: Can you run Adobe's Photoshop image-editing software on the iPad?

A: No.

Actually that's not true. The iTunes store has had the Photoshop app up for quite some time now. [iTunes Photoshop app link] In fact, many software companies have developed lightweight apps that integrate with their more powerful desktop and/or web-based apps.

That's not to say that the iPad is going to thrill anybody as a computer. It's really an enlarged iPhone ... without the phone (and I'd say even the iPhone doesn't really have a phone). And I could see using it around the house as a magazine "e-reader". Maybe even for reading books, though on that score I'm not so sure.

John Erianne has an interesting take on why book publishing won't exactly be saved by the iPad/Apple store model:

Most readers are casual readers. Your average reader reads maybe two books per year. I’m not talking about voracious readers like yours truly — I’m talking about those people that might read the latest Twilight novel or maybe a Stephen King. These people will read a book once and then they are done with it. These people don’t spend a lot of money on books. Ironically, the more prolific the reader, the more esoteric their tastes in books so they may not go for the latest bestseller as gleefully as a casual reader. For perhaps different reasons, both of these groups aren’t going to be overly eager to spend $16.99 on a eBook and, unlike with music downloads, they are not likely to be downloading ten books at a time. Amazon has the advantage in that they’ve pretty much written the book on the selling of online books both the hardcopy and digital variety. Publishers fear Amazon the way brick ‘n’ mortar retailers fear Wal-Mart. And for good reason. Think about this: Amazon still has a virtual monopoly on selling hardcopy books online. They control the lion’s share of this market. As such, is it smart for a publisher to play hardball with Amazon over the Kindle? I’m not saying Amazon shouldn’t be taken down a peg or two, but when consumers are at stake, you’ve really got to pick your battles. And quibbling over a few dollars in price point is stupid.

While the Kindle may eventually go the way of the buffalo, Amazon is in a better position to turn the Kindle into device similar to an iPod Touch than Apple is to duplicate Amazon’s online marketplace for books. Which is not to say people won’t buy the iPad. Apple-o-philes will undoubtedly shell-out the $500 for this new toy just because it’s from Apple as well as other techies and gizmo-lovers who just have to have it because it’s the new thing. Just don’t bet on it as a game-changer the way the iPod and the iPhone were. It-is-not-going-to-happen.

And yet, I think we'll see more than just Apple fanboys snapping up iPads. Who else? Gizmodo has a funny post profiling 6 types of iPad fans and critics in which lot of it rings true — although I don't see myself in one category, but rather see bits of myself in all of them.

Still, while iPad represents at least a small inflection point in how people consume information, it remains to be seen how this will change publishing — let alone, whether it will be "revolutionary" in any way. It really depends upon the market. And on that score, maybe John Etienne is right: Apple is reaching out of its zone of competence and challenging Amazon's core business. And my bet is Amazon isn't going to take it lying down.

My sense, though, is that it's not entirely up to Apple. We have open source Android-powered touchpad devices coming soon, and they likely won't be constrained by Apple's walled market castle business model. How will content producers adapt to these new consumer behaviors? And will the consumers truly view a touchpad as profoundly different than the computer experience to the point of being more willing to open their wallets, as publishing prognosticators are predicting? The market will decide.

Personally I feel we need a new banking system where online transactions can operate in the fractions of a cent, rather than accommodating the roughly 30-cent floor on credit card-based transactions. (But that's a topic for another blog post.)

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how much of a breakout success the iPad will be, especially when even geeks run into the challenge of finding content. Dave Winer shared his experience this morning:

Okay so the iPad has a problem that lots of software has, when you finish the basic setup -- now what? There are no movies, newspapers or books on the device, and no clue as to how to get them on there. Those are the first things I want to do, see how it plays stuff. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I should disconnect and see what I get....

...Where can I get a book to try out for $0?

I also have to get Netflix. And the NY Times. What else?

Okay I want to copy bigLebowski.avi onto the iPad. How?

How to find good content. Hasn't that always been the challenge?

iPad where there was none: How Apple's new product competes against non-consumption

The iPad is low powered, but who cares for what it's intended to do?

Once I got over the ridiculous name — and thank you, HuffPo, for sharing the Mad TV sketch that long predates the iPad announcement — I started to see how the new Apple iPad fits in the current market.

It doesn't. That's right, it doesn't. And I predict it's going to be a pretty big success, too.

Apple iPad faux pas

The iPad competes against non-consumption. There is no existing electronic device that it effectively replaces. Too big for the handbag, too small for most productive tasks, and with its touchscreen keyboard it really isn't a netbook. This is a new thing. A fun thing.

Let me explain.

Clayton Christensen has written and talked much about disruptive technologies and how they can cause dramatic shifts in existing markets, as well as open new markets altogether. One case he talks about is the advent of the transistor radio. Transistors had been around for years. The problem was that companies could not figure out how to use them in their products. You see, transistors could not take a lot of power, so they would blow out when you put them in a system requiring a lot of power to run.

Then in 1965 the portable transistor radio came out. How did they fix the problem of the transistor's low power capacity? They didn't. Instead they came up with a low-power product that actually could use transistors. Here's the thing: the product did not replace anything. It was completely new, for a new market of radio buyer. The transistor radio had no competition (except with itself). It was a hit because suddenly kids could listen to their own music. The radio itself sounded like crap, but that didn't matter because the alternative of going home and convincing mom and dad to put on rock and roll just wasn't in the cards. The transistor radio was competing against non-consumption. Before the transistor radio, people did not have an option except for home or maybe the car.

Now we have the iPad coming on the market, with its low-power, ho-hum performance processor. People are excited, but don't seem to have a strong sense of what they would actually do with an iPad. But I figure — and my hunch is that this is what Steve Jobs and company are figuring — is that the iPad will find its own place in our technology lives. It won't replace the smart phone because it's not portable. It won't replace the laptop because it's not really designed for much productivity.

No, it's for something new: The casual online consumption of media, away from the computer, free of the television, and with no dead trees to think about.

I see the iPad as becoming the morning newspaper, the weekly and monthly magazine, the video screener — and yes, the means to stay connected via social networks, email, etc. while you're doing all these other things.

When you go to work, the iPad will stay at home. When you go to a conference, the iPad will stay at home. In fact, for many people, I imagine the iPad will never leave the kitchen table.

That's why the mobile connectivity is only a pre-pay option, and not at all emphasized. Because this is a device that will live off of your home wifi.

And though I certainly have other things I probably should do with my money, I want one!

There has been much concern about digital rights management (DRM) in the iPad. Apple is maintaining very strict control over the device and what you can do with the content on it. It's looking like publishers are counting on it, and are pinning at least part of their hopes of salvation in this new media economy on paid subscriptions on this device that is so much more than a Kindle.

Then there are Kindle users who are concerned that Apple seems to be defining a new version of eBooks.

The way I figure it, however, is that the market will sort that out. DRM does not fly with consumers when it makes the purchase a hassle or the experience a pain in the ass. DRM sure didn't work in the iTunes store, when consumers discovered they couldn't play the music they bought on another device. We'll see how that sorts out. (Honestly, there is a lot to say about DRM, but I'll save that for another blog post sometime. Maybe a series.)

Related iPad blogging:

Rosa Golijan points us to Kim Zetter's Wired blog noting that Wired will be coming to the iPad by subscription this summer. It's not surprising to see Wired among the first to jump on board, given their audience.

Katie Marsal reports that, just as the Android app market was starting to pick up steam against the iTunes store, iPad developer interest tripled after the hype.

Apple revealed at its iPad event that there are more than 140,000 applications available on its mobile App Store. That software will be compatible with the iPad when it debuts at the end of March.

But developers will also be able to create new, iPad-specific applications that take advantage of the multitouch device and its 9.7-inch screen.

While the App Store saw a huge increase, new Android applications grew about 25 percent in January, continuing a steady ramp for Google's mobile platform. However, Apple's App Store spike helped to push it even further ahead of Android.

It makes me wonder how long it will be before a company releases an Android competitor to the iPad.

Or has it already happened? Amanda on NetBookBoards gives us the specs on HP's new "smartbook" which....

combines the portability and design of a netbook with the hardware and software often seen in smartphones. The Airlife has a battery life of up to 12 hours, longer than what most netbooks can offer. While the Airlife and iPad are very different in terms of design, they share many similar features such as simplified software interfaces, touch-screens, and ARM processors (most netbooks use Intel processors).

But is the Airlife really an iPad competitor? It doesn't seem to fit the use case I described above.

Staci D. Kramer reports on Disney's enthusiasm about the iPad:

Bob Iger wasn’t on stage for the iPad launch last month, but the Disney CEO just gave a demo spiel Steve Jobs, the company’s largest shareholder, would applaud about a “really compelling” device that could be a game changer. Volunteering and replying to analyst questions about how Disney plans to use the new Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) tablet, Iger reeled off a series of iPad uses that are either likely or already in progress: a companion to ABC’s Lost, an ABC News app, a digital books app for Disney, an enhanced version of the popular ESPN Sports Center app, and apps for Marvel (NYSE: DIS).

Amy-May Elliott shares with us Bill Gates' shrug over the iPad.

"You know, I’m a big believer in touch and digital reading, but I still think that some mixture of voice, the pen and a real keyboard - in other words a netbook - will be the mainstream on that", Gates said.
"So, it’s not like I sit there and feel the same way I did with iPhone where I say, ‘Oh my God, Microsoft didn’t aim high enough.’ It’s a nice reader, but there’s nothing on the iPad I look at and say, ‘Oh, I wish Microsoft had done it".

Notwithstanding various cynical reactions out there to the iPad, self-confessed Apple fangirl, Lorraine Marie shares some iPad accessories she's wanting (as the iPad itself is a given).

Because it’s a known fact that I’m an Apple fangirl, many people feel it’s their duty to let me know that they won’t be buying the iPad. That’s fine with me- people can certainly choose not to buy Apple’s latest product. But I’m not one of those people.

Before wrapping this up, I just have to share the prescient Mad TV sketch:

So what do you think? Do you want an iPad? Why? (Why not?)

[I wrote this for BlogHer.]

Are you wanting an iPad?

I find myself wanting an iPad to read the news in the morning. It would be nice for magazines, too, I think. Of course I'm assuming that the usability will be very good. Maybe I'm wrong.

But I think the iPad will be a big success.

What do you think? Is the iPad a must-have device for you?

Dropbox is what iDisk should have been

Of course, if Apple's iDisk didn't actually suck — didn't actually sync at dial-up data rates, didn't actually take days to sync a few megabytes of files, didn't actually stop syncing altogether at the first file conflict it encountered (which should be conflicting at all), didn't actually corrupt files due to all of the above — then Dropbox would probably have a much smaller market, at least among Mac users.

But iDisk does suck.

And Dropbox is easy peasy.

And Dropbox is also cross-platform, so you can sync across all kinds of computers.

And Dropbox makes individualized sharing of folders possible.

So now I am using Dropbox, and when my MobileMe account expires, I'll have to see if syncing other stuff via MobileMe is worth $99/year. After all, I'm already syncing email and calendars via Google.

This whole situation boggles my mind, though. It's not as if Apple didn't have the resources to make iDisk totally rock.

Snow Leopard problems with Quicktime and Keynote

Following up on my previous post, I'm having more problems with Snow Leopard. Here's the story.... I created a slideshow (for DrupalCon Paris 2009) that was to autoplay on a hi-def monitor. Aside from crashing issues I mentioned before, I was able to create the slideshow and export it to an autoplaying Quicktime movie. Only the Mac's own Quicktime 10 would not play it past 4 seconds. So I installed the optional Quicktime 7. It was able to play the video for about 25 seconds or so, and then stop. In both cases, if I set the video to loop, it would loop only the few seconds that it would play. The same file on a Windows machine had no problems. So Quicktime on Snow Leopard has issues, at least with the files that Keynote on Snow Leopard generates. Joys on the bleeding edge.

Experiencing Snow Leopard in the real world

First, I want to say that I love Snow Leopard. This latest OSX (10.6) is wiki-wiki! All the more so on my SSD MacBook Pro. I log in and within 2-3 seconds I have desktop, ready to go.

But to be honest, it has not been a bug-free experience. Which is why I read with amusement in the Ars "review" (which really isn't a review, more of a background piece) that Snow Leopard was a no-new-features/no-new-bugs release. There are new features, which others have covered more than adequately.

There are also new bugs. Or at least the new OS has shifted enough that apps declared stable and supported on Snow Leopard may be supported but certainly are not stable, in my own experience.

And it's only been since Saturday, so my experience is thin. But in that time I have spent a lot of time in Apple's own Keynote app (iWork '09) and Adobe's InDesign CS4.

They both crash. A lot. To provide context, in both apps I am working with modestly large documents. My Keynotes tend to be graphics heavy. Maybe on the high side of normal usage by people in general. But this is Apple's own product. I have resorted to saving after each change I make, knowing that at any moment, anything I do could make the app go poof! and disappear, without even leaving a note.

I have lower expectations regarding Adobe's InDesign. Since Snow Leopard came out ahead of what most developers expected, maybe Adobe got caught off guard. But when it comes to InDesign, I am doing rich document work, not magazine layout. These should not be pushing InDesign anywhere near its limits.

But InDesign has become my fickle friend, collapsing on me when I do something innocuous like a cut/paste.

In both cases, my gut tells me that this could be related to memory management issues of Snow Leopard itself. I have 8GB of RAM, but copying things from Word to put into InDesign would kill InDesign. When it comes to Keynote, however, whether it's the app or the OS, this is on Apple.

I'm going to keep investigating settings, and if I come up with anything I will post an update from the bleeding edge.

Mac OS X, Windows Vista and Ubuntu Linux together in Parallels worlds

So I bought two seats of Parallels a week or so ago. I couldn't resist: It was buy one, get one free. (And still is through December 31st.) Now my desktop Mac at work and my MacBook Pro drive the latest versions of OS X Leopard, Windows Vista and Ubuntu Linux, all from the same desktop, running in ... parallel. Who needs to choose between Mac and PC when there's Parallels?