Link

Good analysis.

Link

If you’ve been enjoying FlickIt so far (here’s our review if you missed it), you’ve got this in-depth post about its development.

Link

“You can actually see this problem already on Apples iPad website. Why do you think Apple doesn’t ship iPad versions of the calculator, the clock, the weather app or the stocks app? Because they wouldn’t live up to Apples standards, if you’d just blow them up to the iPads screen.”

I definitely agree with this. It’s either rewrite the whole app, or you’re busted.

Very useful post over at Bjango’s team blog, analyzing the various types of iTunes links.

Macworld

“Technical people always complain about being buttonholed at every family get-together by relatives who want “free tech support.” But why do they want this? Why do they need it? The answer is that consumer technology is overly complex.

And whose fault is it?

Unfortunately, it’s my fault. And possibly your fault. It’s the fault of everyone, including marketers, who relentlessly call for more, more and ever more features. Combine this with our calls for backward compatibility, and the result is systems that do everything. They’re so feature-rich, so complex, that some people can’t get them to do anything.”

Everyone always says, “There’s an app for that”, but what you don’t often hear is, “There’s a story for that app”. I chatted with NibiruTech, the team behind the recently reviewed MobileRSS to learn more about what it’s like having to deal with a government that doesn’t let you browse the web the way it should be.

Read more

Link

“For whatever reason, there are only a handful of people selling code components on the Apple platforms. I suspect that’s less about the market and much more about perceived worthiness; we do all tend to collectively reinforce the perception that only the very best stuff will do, and it’s incredibly difficult to convince yourself your code is even worthy of being open source, much less paid for in its raw form. I’ve had to twist the arms of so many Mac developers to convince them that they have a component worth sharing with others.”

From the iPad’s official webpage:

“The App Store will feature new apps designed specifically for iPad. You’ll find hundreds that make the most of its large display, responsive performance, and Multi-Touch interface. iPad apps appear in a special section of the store, so you can find and download them easily.”

A special section in the Store, which sounds like a category filled with other sub categories for different apps. Put in this way, it doesn’t sound like they’re pushing the thing too much.

Link

“After you’ve read your twelfth ebook, you don’t need the candy anymore. Ideally, the candy isn’t so distracting that you hate it, and what was once cute (swiping to flip the page!) turns into sheer utility (tapping to turn the page, which I have to believe will also be possible in iBooks.)

But that flip matters because it gets you going. And it gets going everyone who sees you reading your twelfth book in iBooks. How will you demo it to them? Will you tap or will you slowly turn the page? If your booklist was also available as a boring (and useful) black-and-white table, would that be the screen you’d show your friends?”

No, definitely. And just as they did with the iPhone, they need to push the simplicity effect, make it clear that there’s one and only one  way to browse and view books - and that way is beautiful. They could have used awkward thumbnails for Contacts.app on the iPhone, but they didn’t.  And like it or not, consistency and simplicity are what made the iPhone stand out.