This Week's Sponsor:

Direct Mail

Professional Email Marketing Built Just for Mac Users

iOS-ification Addendum

Following the announcement of OS X Mountain Lion and the release of the first developer preview, I’ve been seeing a lot of new commentary being added to the longstanding argument that Apple is “iOS-ifying” the Mac with features and apps from the iPad. Matt Alexander has probably the best metaphor on the subject:

And then yesterday, OS X and iOS announced an impromptu decision. Many had already (reluctantly) seen it coming but most chose to ignore the possibility, hurt that OS X might do that to them (to them!). But now it’s real, the two are moving in together, and that means a lot of things for the end-user.

Of the utmost importance is the fact that such a step does not suggest that the two entities are merging. Separate identities remain, but assets and possessions are shared. The decision comes when two individuals decide that, as a couple, they are better together than they are on their own. Moving in together, the couple is free to communicate more clearly with each other, to really learn about themselves, and to face complex life decisions together. The two are not somehow merging into the same entity, they’re merely moving under one roof, sharing some belongings, and generally learning how to co-exist in a new contextual environment.

The image of two OSes “moving in together” works exceptionally well in this context as Apple isn’t merging iOS and OS X – they are trying to get the best features “inspired from iPad” and bring them over to OS X. Anyone who’s ever been in a stable relationship understands that the single characteristics of a person (the “features” in OS parlance) mostly remain intact over the years, but as two people decide they are better as a couple, there might be some influence over each other’s distinctive traits (cue definition of “ecosystem” and “inspiration”). I think Matt simply nailed it with his article.

I believe, however, that there’s still much of a debate going around as to whether Apple is 100% clear in admitting “they are borrowing” from iOS to enhance the Mac, or Mountain Lion and the whole “iOS-ification” theory shouldn’t be a surprise at all because Apple isn’t trying to “iOS-ify” anything.

A few weeks ago, I wrote:

Today’s (relatively minor) software update reminds me, however, that the iOS-ification goes far beyond simply converting graphics and updating apps from one platform to another. It is actually more a conversion of the entire Apple ecosystem to an iOS-inspired system of graphical elements, user interactions, business models, user experience paradigms, and functionalities. The iOS-ification isn’t simply visual, it’s a fundamental shift of strategy that, ultimately, I believe begins and ends with iCloud — something that I have discussed before.

After the release of Mountain Lion, Jim Dalrymple wrote:

If Apple were trying to make Mountain Lion more like iOS we would be touching the screen of our computers to interact with out apps instead of using the keyboard and mouse.

Mountain Lion is about familiarity and integration. The new features and apps in Mountain Lion make sense for a desktop operating system.

To which Ben Brooks responded:

I don’t disagree with what Dalrymple is saying up and until the last line. Apple is indeed trying to bring some familiarity and integration between the two platforms, but there’s more to it than that.

The way I see it, Apple is trying to simplify OS X and bring to it some of the features from iOS that make sense. To that end Apple is very much making Mountain Lion more iOS like.

And then Jim wrote a smart counterargument:

I’m going to use the same faulty logic that some people have used to claim that OS X Mountain Lion is being iOS-ified to show how iOS is being Mac-ified.

Having watched some old Apple material on the matter (more on this in a bit), I see both ends of the controversy now – and I think the main issue here is that many  (including me) haven’t properly explained what they meant by “iOS-ification”. So, before the discussion continues, here’s my take on the feared word: I see “iOS-ification” as “inspiration” from an OS (and ecosystem of devices) that’s been insanely successful over the past five years. Inspiration, not copying, and not “making the Mac like iOS”. In fact, I think that “making the Mac like iOS” is the wrong expression to use – there is a subtle difference, but I’d use “iOS has inspired some changes in OS X” rather than “iOS-like” or “more like iOS”. It’s merely semantics, I know, but I’d like to settle this, and it’s important to use the right terminology.

In order to properly move forward, here’s a few things we can agree upon:

  • OS X is the technological foundation of iPhone OS (now iOS).
  • Once on iOS, Apple developed some new apps and user features for it.
  • After a few years, Apple decided to take some apps and user features from iOS (iPad and iPhone) and bring them back to the Mac.

These are the facts. Now, the problem is the interpretation of these facts, and how writers like Ben and Jim see the aforementioned process of “bringing back” as iOS-ification, inspiration, natural evolution, or whatever they want to call it. In fact, I believe the real issue is the meaning we want to give to these facts, and how they play in the bigger picture of Apple being committed to the Mac platform.

As usual, I’d like to turn it over to Steve to remind us how a particular subject was first introduced. Here’s how he described the process behind OS X Lion at the Back to the Mac event in 2010:

What is the big idea, what is the philosophy behind Mac OS X Lion? Well, that’s where Back to the Mac comes from.

What we’ve done is we’ve started from Mac OS X and we created from it a version called iOS, which we used in the iPhone, and we invented some new things and we’ve perfected it over the last several years and it’s now used in the iPad as well. What we’d like to do – we’re inspired by some of those innovations in the iPad and the iPhone, we’d like to bring them back to the Mac. And so that’s what Lion’s about: Mac OS X meets the iPad.

If you watch the keynote again, you’ll notice how Steve and other executives often mention the word “inspiration” while demonstrating features that are “convenient just like the iPad” and “iPad-style” in the way they are presented on screen. I don’t think there’s any doubt that a) iOS is technologically based off OS X and b) Apple created new features on iOS that were eventually ported to OS X. The latter point is happening once again with Mountain Lion, as things like Notification Center and Twitter integration were chronologically iOS-first – and they are now displayed “iPad-style” on the Mac.

With these facts available, I’d like to lay out my own conceptual compromise we can (hopefully) agree upon while we’re waiting to see where Apple is headed with Mountain Lion and its Mac hardware line-up.

Here it goes: iOS-ification indicates the process of being inspired by the iPad’s success to port some apps and features to OS X. In this process, the operating systems are kept separate, and features are developed to take advantage of each device’s nature. Ultimately, iOS-ification is aimed at making iOS and OS X coexist in a single iCloud ecosystem.

Before I continue, allow me to present more fact-checking straight from Apple’s PR:

Lion (2010):

Lion brings many of the best ideas from iPad back to the Mac, plus some fresh new ones like Mission Control that Mac users will really like,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Lion has a ton of new features, and we hope the few we had time to preview today will give users a good idea of where we are headed.

Mountain Lion (2012).

Apple today released a developer preview of OS X Mountain Lion, the ninth major release of the world’s most advanced operating system, which brings popular apps and features from iPad to the Mac and accelerates the pace of OS X innovation.

As I said above, I see both points in this argument. “The Mac is still a Mac and these are just features” and “The Mac is starting to be a lot like iOS” both make sense (and are factually correct) depending on how you look at the issue, which is a complex one in that it’s got a lot of history behind it, subtle changes in marketing (“best ideas” from 2010 compared to “popular apps and features” in 2012), and an overall “we don’t know yet” aspect due to Apple’s ever growing success and sales numbers.

I do believe, however, that if we consider iOS-ification as “inspiration” and agree that when iPad features comes to OS X they retain the Mac’s best advantages and functionalities (an example is Notification Center having a keyboard shortcut in Mountain Lion), we can find a sweet spot that makes everyone happy and excited about the things to come.

Whilst drawing a line between familiarity and integration is hard because, after all, we’re just writers and we’re not aware of Apple’s real goals, I believe the unification that’s happening now isn’t about the two operating system – it’s iCloud. I’ve written about this before, and I won’t repeat myself here – iCloud is becoming Apple’s “ecosystem for everything” on each release. iCloud is the platform for the next decade no matter if iOS and OS X will eventually merge or not.

Review: Osfoora for Mac

Osfoora Default Timeline.png

Osfoora Default Timeline.png

I have been a heavy user of Twitter for Mac since it was first released over a year ago. While certainly not perfect, for me, it is the gold standard of desktop Twitter apps. As such, it is impossible for me to be objective when reviewing a new client, as I will inevitably end up comparing it to Twitter for Mac (hereafter Twitter.app), so I’m telling you here and now that I didn’t even try to do otherwise. As a result, much of this review consists of comparisons between Osfoora and Twitter.app, and the best I can hope for is that other long-time Twitter.app users find it useful. So let’s get into it. Read more

Rovio Teases Angry Birds Space, Launching March 22

It may be on every platform under the sun and there may already be three versions of Angry Birds, but Rovio isn’t stopping any time soon with their Angry Birds franchise. In fact next month they will be launching the third game in the series: Angry Birds Space. Teaming up with NASA and the National Geographic, the new app will (naturally) feature some twists on the physics used in the game, including zero gravity and a new “lightspeed destruction” feature.

Angry Birds Space is a completely new game with innovative new gameplay, but with some of the familiar Angry Birds elements that fans already know and love – plus some surprises!

Rovio is planning on making it their biggest game launch since Angry Birds was first released and is targeting a launch on not only multiple platforms but also push the retail and publishing aspects of the game as well. Rovio will reveal more details about the game in early March, but until then you can visit the teaser site or view Angry Birds Teaser trailer below the break.

[Venture Beat via Eurogamer, Engadget]
Read more

Nightline Given Exclusive Access To Apple’s Foxconn Factories, Program To Air This Tuesday

The ABC’s Nightline program will air on Tuesday a report from Bill Weir that delves inside Apple’s Foxconn factories. ABC News announced the program on Twitter and PCWorld notes that Apple gave Weir “exclusive access” to tour the Foxconn factories, meet with workers as well as interview a “top executive”.

For years, Apple and Foxconn have been synonymous with monster profits and total secrecy so it was fascinating to wander the iPhone and iPod production lines, meet the people who build them and see how they live. Our cameras were rolling when thousands of hopeful applicants rushed the Foxconn gates and I spoke with dozens of line workers and a top executive about everything from hours and pay to the controversies over suicides at the plant and the infamous ‘jumper nets’ that line the factories in Shenzhen. After this trip, I’ll never see an Apple product the same way again.

It’s the latest move by Apple to try and quell the backlash from media and consumers over the treatment of workers at Apple’s suppliers — particularly at Foxconn. Earlier this year they released their 2012 Supplier Responsibility Report a few weeks earlier than previous years. Apple also revealed who their suppliers are and then joined the Fair Labor Association, who are currently conducting an investigation in regards to working conditions at Foxconn.


[PCWorld via TUAW]

The iOS Permission Dialog Dilemma

For anyone who used Windows Vista, you will be well aware of the frustration that UAC (User Account Control) caused. That permission dialog popped up far too frequently, constantly asking the user for permission to execute a particular task. In theory, it was a good idea: give the user more control over what was allowed to run. The problem was that because the dialog box popped up far too often, people quickly learned to ignore it and blindly click “Allow” whenever it appeared - nullifying any of the security benefits of UAC. Thankfully Microsoft relaxed the pervasiveness of UAC in Windows 7 and it is now a far more useful security tool.

Why did I just spend a paragraph talking about UAC? Because to a certain degree, Apple is facing a similar dilemma with iOS and its permission dialogs. It recently faced scrutiny after it was revealed that a number of apps were accessing a user’s entire address book and even uploading it to their servers - without any user approval. Apple has now pushed back and announced it will soon require user permission for apps to access a user’s Contacts. But will it resemble yet another blue dialog box, just like access to Location, Push Notifications and Twitter already do? If so a user will face a barrage of those dialog boxes, asking for permission, one on top of the other.

It’s after reading Marco Arment’s thoughts on this issue earlier today that I thought I would weigh into the discussion and suggest one idea that may (or may not) be a potential ‘solution’. While there can never be a single solution that will be perfect for everyone (what may be overly cautious for one user may be overly lenient for another) the goal as I see it is to arrive at a solution somewhere in the middle ground; one that achieves an acceptable mix of precaution and freedom.

Essentially, my suggestion is that rather than let users face a stacked barrage of blue permission dialogs, is to flatten them all out on one clear screen when they first launch an app after installation. Users would see a list of what the app would like permission to access and the user would be able to (with one tap) allow all, or individually deny permission for the various databases. Furthermore, with one tap, a user could see a short justification from the developer for why the app is requesting that particular access - giving a little bit more control and peace of mind to the user. If a developer lied on this page it would almost certainly be grounds for expulsion from the App Store. The one final goal of my proposal is that it would also inform the user that these options can be changed the Settings, something many users may not be aware of at the moment.

I myself am not sure this is the best option, because there is one critical weakness. With my design, an app would have to upfront ask for permissions for whatever it might want to access in the future - but as Marco points out, some apps (like Instapaper) require access to something like Location for a minor feature that not everyone would even use (in that case it is to determine if it’s night at the users location, in which case it can switch automatically to dark mode).

If I asked most careful people if Instapaper could have their location, they’d refuse, because there’s no obvious good reason. But if the app asks right when they enable a location-based setting from a screen that shows why it’s asking for their location, they can make a more educated decision. Similarly, if an app doesn’t seem to have a good reason when it asks for Contacts, a skeptical person can decline.

Although to counter that point, I would note that not only can a user choose to individually deny Instapaper access to their location, but if they were curious as to why Instapaper would need access to their location, they could quickly read Marco’s explanation with one tap. Furthermore, my suggestion wouldn’t entirely remove the blue permissions dialog, as an app could ask again for permission later on if access was initially denied but a user is trying to use a feature that requires permission – in that case, the app could trigger the dialog to ask the user permission again.

Accompanying my suggestion would be something similar to Rene Ritchie’s app permission sheet in Settings. It would list all apps that have asked for permissions and you could dive in and edit those original options from when you first installed the app. As for allowing an app to send push notifications, I would probably keep that separate, as its own blue dialog box. My permissions “screen” would be solely dedicated to access permissions, to information that is privately stored on your device. One big benefit of such a permissions screen of course is that Apple could theoretically add more things that require permission to be accessed by apps, without a user becoming too overwhelmed, because such a layout is far better than stacking dialog boxes. Think about access to NFC or perhaps your music library.

Apple Counting Down to 25 Billion App Downloads

Thanks to over 315 million cumulative iOS devices sold and the breadth of applications available, Apple’s preparing to celebrate their 25 billionth download by awarding the lucky downloader a $10,000 App Store gift card. In only four months, iOS users will have downloaded an additional 7 billion apps from the App Store since last October where Apple reached 18 billion App Store downloads. (15 billion apps were downloaded as of last July). With over 550,000 apps available (175,000 iPad-specific apps) to download, there’s plenty of great applications to choose from that fill a variety of needs on user’s devices. The App Store’s great download spike can also be contributed to the number of iOS devices purchased in 2011 alone: 156 million iOS devices were sold last year compared to a total of 122 million Macs ever sold.

As of today, nearly 25 billion apps have been downloaded worldwide. Which is almost as amazing as the apps themselves. So we want to say thanks. Download the 25 billionth app, and you could win a US$10,000 App Store Gift Card.* Just visit the App Store and download your best app yet.

To participate in the competition, you simply have to purchase or download a free app from the App Store and be the lucky winner randomly chosen by Apple. You can also enter to win without purchasing anything from the App Store by simply visiting the contest page and filling out the linked contest form. One the 25th billion download has been reached, the contest ends! (Each applicable contestant is allowed only 25 entries.)

[via 9to5 Mac]

Edit (02/19/2012): Updated final paragraph to clarify contest rules.

Messages Will Be Available On Mountain Lion Only After Beta

Apple may have released a public beta version of Messages for Lion yesterday, but from what Consomac has discovered, it may only be a temporary situation. Digging into the text strings inside the app’s resources found one particular string which said:

Thank you for participating in the Messages Beta program. With the inclusion of Messages in OS X Mountain Lion, the Messages Beta program has ended.

To continue using Messages, please visit the Mac App Store and purchase OS X Mountain Lion.

This suggests that once the Messages beta has concluded, the app will cease to work and users will have to purchase Mountain Lion to continue using the Messages app.

[Via MacRumors]

Mountain Lion’s Gatekeeper→

Mountain Lion’s Gatekeeper

When the Mac App Store launched just over a year ago, many feared that it was the beginning of the end for running apps that weren’t approved by Apple on OS X. Jump forward a year and a bit and Apple has announced Mountain Lion, the next version of OS X that is set to launch this summer. One big feature of Mountain Lion is what Apple is calling Gatekeeper. It’s a new setting, aimed at both security and peace of mind. Essentially Gatekeeper will be giving users three options for controlling what apps run:

  • Only allow applications from the Mac App Store to run
  • Allow Mac App Store apps and those from identified developers
  • Allow any app to run

By default, the second option is chosen, allowing apps from the Mac App Store to run, as well as those from identified developers. What’s an identified developer? It’s someone that has registered as a developer with Apple and receives a personalised certificate. They can use that certificate to sign their apps, so that Gatekeeper will allow the app to run. It also means that if the app is found to be malicious, Apple can order Gatekeeper to remove that app from any Mountain Lion machine. Mac developers Panic have written a long blog post explaining the feature in great depth, explaining how it works, why it’s needed and why Apple chose to implement it in this way.

The simplest thing Apple could have done would have been to make the Mac App Store the sole source for Mac apps, in the same way the App Store is the sole source for iOS apps, shutting off every other app distribution venue in the process. While this would have immediately solved the problem, you would have seen developers’ heads bursting into flame and flying across the room in rage. Why?

Although security is a vital feature for Apple, developers, and users alike, being unable to run unsigned code cuts a lot of really great things off at the knees. You wouldn’t, for example, be able to just download and run an open source project unless it had been submitted to and reviewed by the App Store. Highly disruptive software (think Napster or BitTorrent) may have not been able to exist on the Mac platform since it would have been likely to run afoul of Apple’s App Store guidelines. Major vendors such as Adobe and Microsoft might have withdrawn their support for the platform, being unwilling to cede 30% of their revenue to App Store distribution.

It isn’t all good news though, Panic is concerned that Apple may be implementing an “artificial gulf” between App Store apps and non-App Store Apps by restricting some new features to only those distributed on the Mac App Store.

There remains one thing that is of concern to me. Despite these great strides forward, Apple is walking a dangerous line with regard to features that are only available to App Store distributed apps. The two most prominent examples are iCloud and Notification Center. Cabel asked Apple if, thanks to Gatekeeper and Developer ID, App Store-only features would be eventually be available to signed apps that were not distributed through the App Store. There was some shuffling of feet and a “we have nothing to announce at this time”. It didn’t sound particularly optimistic.

Gatekeeper will no doubt be a hot topic of discussion in the coming months and we’re likely to see all sides of the debate argue about what Gatekeeper represents. ZDNet, for example, has labelled the feature as a “tool that restricts what the user runs, rather than a security tool that sorts the wheat from the toxic chaff”. Macworld also has an in-depth hands on article with Gatekeeper that is well worth the informative read.

Permalink