Apple Gazzette has collected a series of photographs from around the web showing the inside of Apple’s headquarters at Infinite Loop, Cupertino. These include photos from the atrium, the Company Store, Town Hall auditorium, and offices.
Two months ago, I took a look at the state of iCloud-enabled apps for Mac and iOS, sharing somewhat unsurprising results that showed few applications successfully were using iCloud sync across devices (not to mention platforms), and that developers were frustrated for the lack of extensive documentation by Apple. In these past 60 days, very little has changed on Apple’s side – if anything, we’ve only seen more third-party developers trying to figure out ways to properly use iCloud and make it work in their apps. Tapbots, makers of Tweetbot (our reviews for iPhone and iPad versions of the app), are releasing today an update to their Twitter client, which brings iCloud sync for various Twitter functionalities to the iPhone and iPad.
I have been able to test iCloud sync in Tweetbot for a few weeks now, and whilst I was initially skeptical about the service, I am pleased to report that Tapbots has come up with a solid, clever system that might just convince you switch from Tweet Marker – the only third-party solution to sync Twitter timelines that’s been widely adopted to date – if you’re planning to use Tweetbot as your main client.
iCloud sync, unlike Tweet Marker, works exclusively inside Tweetbot across its iPhone and iPad versions. You won’t be able to start iCloud sync on Tweetbot for iPhone and, say, find your timeline synced on Twitterrific. If you’re still looking for a real cross-platform syncing solution for Twitter, Tweet Marker remains your best option. If you, however, are you using the two Tweetbots as your default Twitter apps anyway and happen to be intrigued by iCloud sync, you might want to consider giving this new option in version 2.2 a try. Once enabled in the Sync settings, iCloud integration will sync mute filters, timeline positions, and DM read status across all instances of Tweetbot. This means that, if you’re using iCloud on your iOS devices running Tweetbot, the app will keep your position in the Twitter timeline synced similarly to how Tweet Marker works, only it will also sync your direct messages’ read status (if you read a DM on your iPhone, it will also be automatically marked as read on the iPad) and mute filters set in the app’s Preferences. In my tests, both Tweet Marker and iCloud have worked reliably when syncing timelines, but I switched to iCloud full-time for the added convenience of syncing DMs and filters across Tweetbot, and because of the lack of Tweet Marker-enabled apps (that I like) on my desktop. In fact, at least for the time being, I’m still using Twitter’s official client on my Mac. With iCloud sync, I can keep more data synced across Tweetbot for iPhone and Tweetbot for iPad, which I use on a daily basis. Please note that, while iCloud is supposed to be “invisible” to the user, working all the time in the background, there may be a short delay of 10-15 seconds when syncing the timeline position across clients, although I have noticed this sporadically. I suggest you use Tweetbot as you normally would, switching from one client to another when you really need to, avoiding keeping both apps open at the same time just to see if iCloud is working.
Version 2.2 of Tweetbot also brings other improvements and bug fixes throughout the app; most notably, images can now be closed with a pinch gesture on the iPad (similarly to how you can close images in Photos) and both iTunes and YouTube links have gained thumbnail previews in the timeline.
For the past months, I have been increasingly using my iPad as my primary computer, and thus Tweetbot has become the Twitter client I spend the most time using on my iOS devices. This newest update increases the overall stability and performances of the app, but more importantly it brings a native, consistent way to sync data across platforms that, at this point, can only get better in the future – and it’s already working admirably now.
You can get Tweetbot 2.2 on the App Store today.
With a 2.1A output and 10,400mAh capacity, the Gum Max is an external backup battery by Just Mobile that works with iOS devices. Anyone who has used iOS devices extensively – perhaps some of you even use the iPad as their primary computer – knows that, for as much as Apple has focused on making iOS devices extremely user-friendly from a battery life standpoint, the battery is going to run out eventually. And if you use a lot of high-speed 3G data, watch some videos, and play a game or two, that battery indicator up in the iOS status bar is going to run out faster.
Just a few days prior to receiving my Gum Max review unit, I waited in line at the Apple Store in Rome to buy the new iPad. There, I had the chance to experience how important it is to be able to rely on iOS devices without a source of power constantly available – sure, Apple employees allowed us to use the store’s MacBooks to charge our iPhones, but it just seemed rude to me to go there every few hours just to grab a USB port without doing anything else. Waiting in line for more than 20 hours, using a lot of 3G and taking several photos of videos with my iPhone 4S, I had to recharge my device multiple times – and when I didn’t want to use the USB ports kindly provided by Apple’s employees, I had to use my friends’ portable battery packs. There, I realized I really needed to get a backup battery for iOS devices for the future. Indeed, power and battery life seem to be two common concerns these days.
The Gum Max is not one of those battery packs that you can use as a case for the iPhone. The Gum Max actually looks (and weighs) like an external drive, only it can charge iOS devices through USB. The device has a green LED indicator to show how much juice it’s got left to power your iPhone or iPad, and input and output (to recharge the Gum Max, and recharge your iOS devices) are separate, but they both use USB (regular and micro) through cables that are provided in the box. As with many Just Mobile products, the Gum Max looks like something Apple would produce, with a clean and elegant design highlighted by a sturdy aluminum shell. I like the design of the Gum Max, but how it works is what matters in critical situations.
I ran a series of tests to see how the Gum Max would recharge my iPhone 4S, iPad 2, and new iPad. Overall, the Gum Max can easily recharge an iPhone 4S from 0% to 100% in two hours, get an iPad 2 from 0% to 90% with a single charge, and recharge half of the new iPad’s bigger battery with a single charge.
iPhone 4S, started at 3:47 AM. From 0% to 37% in 30 minutes; up to 79% after 67 minutes.
iPhone 4S, started at 11:15 PM. From 0% to 68% in 60 minutes; up to 98% in 115 minutes.
iPad 3, started at 1:10 AM. Up to 28% in 100 minutes.
iPad 3, started at 2:09 PM. Device turned on at 2:17 PM. Up to 35% in 122 minutes; 42% in 145 minutes; 51% in 176 minutes; Gum Max turned off at 5:05 PM with device at 52%.
iPad 2, started at 10:14 PM. Device turned on at 10:23 PM, reached 44% at 11:44 PM, Gum Max turned off with iPad at 90%.
At $109, you have to consider whether getting 5 hours of a new iPad back will be worth the expense, assuming you’re getting the 10 hours of battery life promised by Apple, which I have indeed noticed with my iPad (it is a 4G model, and I don’t keep brightness at 100%). Is a full iPhone charge or an iPad going back to 50% going to a considerable improvement for your work, or the way you rely on iOS devices on the go? And is that improvement going to be worth $109 over time? Especially for iPhone users, I think having a full charge back in two hours can be critical in some scenarios (last year, I spent a night at the hospital to help a friend, my phone died at 3 AM, and I couldn’t reach my parents). For third-generation iPad users, the utility of a battery pack like this is more debatable, as the new iPad is slower at charging, and it’ll completely drain the Gum Max while remaining at only 50%. For previous iPad owners, 90% of charge from zero sounds like a good investment in my opinion.
With these differences in mind, the Gum Max is a fine accessory, it’s very portable, and it comes with an elegant black carrying pouch. You can get it here.
“Save for Web” – not everyone’s favorite thing to do as a designer, but it’s part of the job. It’s monotonous but not a difficult task to do, it simply takes time. MacRabbit, who created Espresso, has released a new Mac app called Slicy. Its sole purpose is to turn PSD files into images for the web and applications. Slicy examines your .psd files for Layer Groups that are named like a file (.png, .jpg, .tif, .icns) and auto-exports them, no “Save for Web” dialog boxes necessary. “Name layer groups like the files you want to create, and Slicy will extract them individually. Enjoy complete freedom to move, obscure and even hide these named layer groups without affecting the extracted images.”
I can admit that my layers and layer groups are not always properly named; I think all designers can attest to this, so Slicy will also help you do a better job with naming objects within your PSD files. Once your naming is done and file is saved, drag the .psd into the apps’s window and Slicy will do the work for you. If you make changes to the .psd after you run Slicy, the app has an option to auto-export the images when they are re-saved. Delicious! If you want to repeat a job you already did, Slicy saves your previous exports under the “clockwise” icon in the upper right. Slicy, however, cannot guarantee a perfect replica for every .psd – the CMYK color space and some advanced filters are not supported.
Easter is almost here and the deals are coming in! Here are today’s @MacStoriesDeals on hardware, iOS, and Mac apps that are on sale for a limited time, so get them before they end!
Read more
(The location of the Apple Store at Porta di Roma. Image via Macity)
According to iSpazio [Google Translation], Apple will open its second retail store in Rome, Italy, on Saturday, April 21. Currently, Apple only has one retail store in Rome. The new one, located at the Porta di Roma shopping mall, should open on the same day Rome celebrates its birthday, commemorating the city’s founding in 753 BC. iSpazio managed to take some exclusive shots of the progress being made with the store’s construction, supposedly showing the usual layout of retail stores located inside Italian malls. iSpazio says the opening date has been confirmed by an “inside source”.
Italian website Macity reported back in January that Apple had started working on the new store, sharing photos of the old Co.Import location under construction. Opening in between Benetton and Bershka retail stores (Benetton is an Italian fashion firm, Bershka is a retailer part of the Spanish Inditex group), the Apple Store will be located on the same floor of heavily trafficked H&M and Media World. The Porta di Roma shopping mall, easily reachable by bus or by car from the GRA, has long been rumored to be a favorite location for Apple to open a retail store, albeit speculation has also suggested the company would like to have a third retail store in downtown Rome.
Recently, Apple has also been rumored to be considering making its new retail store in Turin its “most important” Italian one. Apple was also on the verge of launching a new flagship store in Milan, but the company didn’t manage to get permissions from the city. Currently, Apple has 9 retail stores in Italy.
Easter is almost here and the deals are coming in! Here are today’s @MacStoriesDeals on hardware, iOS, and Mac apps that are on sale for a limited time, so get them before they end!
Read more
(MacRumors’ mockup of a 7.85-inch iPad)
In the latest episode of his weekly podcast with Dan Benjamin, The Talk Show, Daring Fireball’s John Gruber suggested he has heard from “numerous” sources within Apple about a 7.85-inch iPad being tested in the company’s labs.
MacRumors offers a transcript:
Well, I don’t know. What I do know is that they have one in the lab…a 7.85 inch iPad that runs at 1024×768… it’s just like the 9.7” iPad shrunk down a little bit. Apps wouldn’t need to be recompiled or redesigned to work optimally on it. It’s just the iPad smaller.
First off, I haven’t listened to the show yet, as I’d like to reflect upon some ideas I’ve been saving for the past months when rumors about this “smaller iPad” kept coming out. As for why 7.85 inches would be the ideal size for a smaller iPad, AppAdvice’s A.T Faust had a good explanation a few weeks back.
When it comes to this fabled smaller iPad, I don’t think the question we should be asking is “really?”. Of course Apple has a smaller iPad in their labs. Of course it has a 4:3 ratio to maintain existing resolution schemes. I’m more doubtful about the rumors of partners in China mass-producing these units, but I’m sure there are all kinds of neat product prototypes at Cupertino. For the same reason, do you think Apple hasn’t tested all the possible combinations of iPhone form factors? Bigger MacBook Airs? Different Apple TV designs? Do you really believe the world’s most valuable company…no, any sufficiently successful tech company gets an electronic device “just right” on their first try? Of course there are prototypes and iterations. And that a smaller iPad is one of them should be no surprise.
The question that we should be asking is: why would Apple want to release a smaller iPad? Now that’s an interesting discussion, as there are a number of factors worth considering in regards to expanding the iPad line to smaller versions.
Let’s start with the simple one: Apple won’t release a smaller iPad to “respond” to Samsung and the likes. Please note the difference between “consider” and “release” here. Because even if we agree that the rumor of prototypes in the labs is no surprise, then we’d argue on a reason for releasing such product, and I think competition is not a valid one. Apple won’t release a smaller iPad because it feels threatened. Apple is an engineering company at heart, they look at the data, and data suggests there is no need to feel threatened. Sure, Amazon’s Kindle Fire is rumored to be fairly successful, but I bet it’s not that profitable for the company. Amazon didn’t build it with iPad-quality components. So if people would like a first-class smaller iPad, this brings me to the next point: hardware.
There are two popular assumptions going on these days: that a smaller iPad would be perfect for portable eBook reading, and that it would have the resolution of older iPads – 1024x768 pixels. Here’s my problem with this discussion: I don’t see Apple as the company going backwards in terms of specs. I don’t see them coming out with an iPad that’s new and smaller, more portable and lightweight, but carrying the resolution of last year’s iPad. The Retina display isn’t just a display for Apple, it’s a standard that sets the bar higher. Why did the iPod touch gain a Retina display (even if not of the same quality as the iPhone’s)? Because Retina was the new standard in 2010, and Apple had to bring it over to the other 3.5-inch device, the iPod touch. The way I see it, the same reasoning applies, both in terms of philosophy and product concept, to the iPad: the third generation’s iPad Retina display has set the bar higher and I don’t see Apple coming out with a new iPad that shows its pixels once again. With a 7.85-inch screen and the same resolution of older gen iPads, 163ppi wouldn’t look nearly as good as the new iPad’s 264ppi (the original iPad had 132ppi). Apple is a company that iterates, slowly, but inexorably, and the Retina revolution is now indeed impossible to prevent.
So let’s assume Apple does have a smaller iPad with a Retina display. That would make for incredible image quality at 326ppi, but it would create a series of new problems from a software perspective. A 7.85-inch iPad with a 2048x1536 “Retina” display, in fact, would come at 326 ppi – the same as Retina iPhones and iPods. Whilst that would play well in terms of keeping the math unified across the board, it could pose a question for developers. Even without having to update graphics for the new resolution (and maintaining the same size of tap targets), a physically smaller device will inevitably make the user interface run on a more physically constrained display, and what makes sense on a 10-inch display doesn’t necessarily work just as fine on a 7.85-inch one. Apps will run with their existing designs, but there’s the possibility some developers would still want to optimize some graphical elements for the new size.
And then, of course, there is the hardware side of this debate. If Apple had to put a bigger battery (1mm thicker) in the new iPad to compensate for the resources required by more processing power and the Retina display, what makes us think that consumer technology is “already there” to power a Retina display on an even smaller iPad? Batteries small enough and capable of powering a Retina display may already exist, but I assume they wouldn’t be ready for mass production on a large scale. More importantly, if they don’t exist yet, it wouldn’t be a surprise either, as Apple had to make its existing battery bigger (something they don’t usually do) to power its new iPad. For as much as miniaturization is one of Apple’s big focuses, I don’t think we have the right technology to make such a device usable for a long period of time (keep in mind it would supposedly be used a lot for reading). The smaller a device gets, the harder it becomes to balance factors like battery life, temperature, and thickness, and that explains why Apple had to wait until the fourth iteration of the iPhone to implement a high-resolution display.
Now, considering all the points I have mentioned above, we have a plethora of alternative theories and combinations as to why Apple could still figure out a way to produce a smaller iPad. Of all them, I find this idea by Odi Kosmatos particularly interesting because it plays well with the math described above: Odi makes the case for a smaller iPad (7-inch as opposed to the rumored 7.85-inch model) that carries a 1920x1080 resolution that could allow for 326ppi and Retina iPhone apps running at native size on the device. While I find the numbers fascinating, I believe Apple would never do an “iPad” that doesn’t run iPad apps – that’s just absurd. But a device that “sits” in the middle, like the original iPad did for smartphones and computers? A device in between iPhones and iPads? Now that’s an intriguing theory which goes back to the old eBook-reading device rumor: I don’t think the market is so saturated yet that there’s a real need for a new savior that sits in the middle of existing options, but we’ll see.
The other big theory is that, assuming a smaller iPad with Retina display would be unfeasible in the short term, a 7.85-inch iPad with 1024x768 resolution would still be good enough for portability, gaming, kids, and education. Some notes about these possibilities: let alone the fact that I still have to hear of people not buying iPads because they really hate the 9.7-inch form factor, is the existing iPad really not that portable? You can picture the rumored device by looking at the iPad’s display and imagining a smaller iPad inside it. Is that a considerable difference in terms of portability?
Is there really a market of consumers not buying iPads because they want a smaller iPad, or are the nerds simply excited about the rumors? Let’s get real: what would a 7.85-inch iPad do incommensurably better than a regular iPad to give it a reason to exist? You can immediately tell the difference between an iPod nano and an iPod classic, a 13-inch MacBook Air and the 15-inch MacBook Pro (one of the reasons why I think the 13-inch MacBook Pro is a weird choice). Would the 7.85-inch iPad be a product that can stand out on its own, making the few inches less a reason for potential consumers to choose it?
About the “gaming, kids, and education” theory: when I think of all the possible explanations, this is the one that makes some sense, although I still don’t see it as the reason to release a smaller iPad. Apple is a consumer electronics company, and with their iOS devices they have made sure every possible market segment can benefit from them. From doctors and pilots to writers and teachers, iPhones and iPads can appeal to everyone. Why? Because it’s the software that makes the difference. By releasing a smaller iPad, Apple would put the focus on dedicated hardware, rather than software, for the first time in years. Oh, but you can argue Apple did make an iMac for education. Fair enough, but I’ll argue that the Mac market is nowhere near the size of the iOS market. Is it worth producing and releasing a smaller iPad specifically aimed at certain market segments? Personally, I don’t think so – but I could be wrong. What I am certain of is that the Retina display is inarguably better than old displays in every way, and textbooks and games benefit from it. Would a smaller, non-Retina iPad meant for textbooks and games be as appealing as the bigger iPad with a Retina display running the same apps?
As you can see, I am not saying Apple will never release a smaller iPad, because I don’t know, and because saying “never” when it comes to Apple rumors is always a big bet. My point is, when rumors are getting out of hand, it is always better to shift the conversation away from the “what” and back to the “why” to understand if what we are arguing about does even make sense. And in the case of the 7.85-inch iPad, there are a series of technological issues, software questions, and market debates that leave me skpetical as to whether Apple may release such a product this year.
Apple today began emailing Australians who had purchased the new iPad WiFi + 4G model, informing them of their option to get a full refund if they had purchased it on the basis of thinking it would work with Australian 4G LTE or WiMAX networks. The offer is available to anyone who purchased the model before March 28th and they can return it for a full refund until the 25th of April.
It follows events from last week when the ACCC alleged Apple of misleading customers over the 4G capabilities of the new iPad and Apple responded by offering refunds and agreeing to clarify its marketing. Users who wish to obtain the refund must return the iPad and accessories to the original point of purchase and inform them that they had purchased the iPad on the “basis that it was compatible with current Australian 4G LTE networks or WiMAX networks”.
As noted by 9to5 Mac, Apple has also begun informing Australian iPad resellers to update their iPad signage to more accurately describe the iPad’s cellular capabilities in Australia. Notably the new signage includes the paragraph that Apple and the ACCC agreed on last week:
This product supports very fast cellular networks. It is not compatible with current Australian 4G LTE networks and WiMAX networks.
Jump the break to view the full email that Apple has sent to Australian consumers who purchased the “WiFi + 4G” model of the new iPad.
Thanks Stuart Hall, reseller information via 9to5 Mac.
