Category Archives: Technology

Assessing iSlate rumors

Posted on by

Everyone’s waiting for the Apple’s rumored tablet device to be released. It looks like the wait may soon be over. I’ve been going through the rumors, assessing what I think is likely to be true and what is not. Here is my current assessment of where things stand (based on nothing than my own speculation and experience):

• The name of the device is iSlate.

Accuracy confidence: 75%. Ultimately, whatever it’s called won’t matter as much as what it does.

• The iSlate will be announced on January 26 at Yerba Buena media event.

Accuracy confidence: 95%.

• The iSlate will be more like an iPhone than a MacBook. In particular, it will be based on the iPhone OS rather than Mac OS X. It will have an iPhone-like Home screen rather than a Finder. Many apps that now run on the iPhone will run on the iSlate as well. Of course, this all means that the iSlate will have a touchscreen.

Accuracy confidence: 90%.

• The iSlate will have a 10″ display, or close to it. Some iPhone apps will need to be rewritten to accommodate the larger screen size.

Accuracy confidence: 80%.

• The iSlate will include a new “ebook reader” capability. Some rumors suggest that the iSlate will be entirely an ebook reader, not a tablet computing device at all. I am skeptical of this. My gut tells me that Apple is planning something bigger than just a competitor for the Kindle and Nook. Much bigger. See this Daring Fireball article for exactly how big; I completely agree with the overall point of this article.

Accuracy confidence: 95%.

• The iSlate will feature expanded streaming audio and video features. For example, I expect a subscription service that offers movie streaming, akin to what is now available via Netflix. Actually, this is likely to be expanded to all iTunes users, whatever device you have.

Accuracy confidence: 45%.

• The iSlate will not be released in January. More likely, it will not be available until March or even later. Some suggest that its arrival may have to wait until iPhone OS 4.0 is released this summer. I doubt we will have to wait that long or Apple would not be announcing the product in January. But it’s possible.

Accuracy confidence that we will have to wait at least until March: 75%.

• The device will not be a phone, but it will support 3G/4G data services.

Accuracy confidence: 85%.

• The device will not have a foldable cover or a physical keyboard. That is, its form factor will not resemble a MacBook. Rather it will be more of an open “slate,” as its name implies. In that respect, it will look and behave more like the Kindle. There will similarly be no physical keyboard.

Accuracy confidence: 75%.

• Will you be able to attach standard computer peripherals to the device? Most critically, will there be a keyboard accessory? I am going to go with yes here. Will there be a USB port? Will you be able to attach optical drives or hard drives to the device? I am going to go with no here, at least for this first iteration of the iSlate.

Accuracy confidence: 40%.

• Apple stock will take a hit immediately after the announcement. When it does, it may be an excellent time to buy Apple, as stock will bounce back after iSlate becomes a big success.

Accuracy confidence: 70%.

• The iSlate will not be on display at Macworld Expo (even though the event takes place a week later at almost the same location where Apple will host its media event). For whatever reason, Apple appears to be determined to snub the Expo as much as possible.

Accuracy confidence: 60%.

App Store: No appeal for developers?

Posted on by

My most recent article for The Mac Observer delves into the problems developers have with Apple’s App Store approval process — focusing on a recent series of nonsensical rejections. More recently, I stumbled upon another article on the same topic. It makes an intriguing point: the main problem with the App Store is that Apple treats software as a commodity similar to a song in your music library. It doesn’t work. Read the article if you want to find out why.

I’ve since concluded that there is yet another major problem with the App Store approval process: There is no effective and standardized way to appeal a decision.

When I call almost any company, such as my credit card company, to complain about something — and I am dissatisfied with what the person is telling me — I can ask to “speak to your supervisor.” Usually, this works; they do pass my call up the ladder. The result may not change. But at least I get to speak to someone with more authority to make a change.

I understand that the support people at the bottom rung are encouraged not to “get the supervisor” too easily — lest every minor complaint get bumped up. But at least they are permitted the discretion to decide. For my part, I try not to exercise this option unless I truly believe I have a major grievance.

Based on the developers’ stories I have read, the situation with Apple is quite different. You get the feeling that the ones at the bottom of the ladder (assuming you even get to speak to anyone at all, rather than being forced to work through email) are told by Apple: “Make your decision, based on the guidelines we give you. Then stick to it no matter what. Whatever complaint you may hear, ignore it and repeat that your decision is final. Under no circumstances indicate that there is any possible appeal (other than via the developer resubmitting the app and starting over). And certainly don’t pass off a call to any “higher up.”

If Apple adopted a more reasonable approach to dealing with dissatisfied developers, it might have avoided most, if not all, of the “horror stories” that have been circulating on the Web.

The iPhone is ready to go beyond AT&T

Posted on by

In the November 23 issue of Newsweek, Daniel Lyons argues that the iPhone is in danger of the same fate the befell the Mac: doomed to a small market share while another player becomes dominant. For the Mac, the other “player” was Microsoft. For the iPhone, the biggest threat is Google’s Android.

The problem, as Lyons sees it, is that Android is an open system that potentially works on any company’s hardware, just as was the case for MS-DOS/Windows. The iPhone, in contrast, is a closed system “keeping the software tightly coupled to the hardware.”

While I too have lamented the iPhone’s closed nature, I have to disagree with Lyons’ overall conclusion. The foundation of the iPhone’s appeal comes from the über-successful iPod. While the iPod might be similarly criticized as “closed,” it is never-the-less the 2000-gorilla of MP3 players. With the iPod touch as its wingman, the iPhone is similarly positioned to be follow in the footsteps of the iPod rather than the Mac.

With one exception.

I totally agree with Lyon’s concern that the iPhone runs only on the AT&T network. In the beginning, back in 2007, this hardly mattered. Starting from an installed base of zero, the iPhone was destined to take off no matter what. Any AT&T customer thinking of getting a smartphone was going to give the iPhone a serious look. For millions of other users, the desire to have an iPhone trumped everything — and they switched to AT&T.

Times have changed. AT&T continues to take hits for its relatively poor 3G network. Its refusal to activate Internet tethering on the iPhone because of its expected network impact is yet another black mark. Meanwhile, as Google’s Android phone improves, it may become less critical to switch to AT&T just so you can get an iPhone.

The result is that the potential pool of iPhone users will inevitably plateau. No other smartphone need worry about bumping into this ceiling.

What’s the solution? It’s an easy one. Apple needs to expand the iPhone’s availability to carriers beyond AT&T. The iPhone already supports a multitude of different carriers around the world. It shouldn’t be that difficult to support more than one carrier in the U.S.. Numerous others have come to the same conclusion (see this article for one example).

The hangup is more legal than technological. Apple and AT&T currently have a licensing agreement that requires that the status quo be maintained. Although both parties remain relatively mum about the details of this arrangement, there are predictions that the contract will expire as soon as next year.

When that happens, I would strongly urge Apple to drop its exclusive licensing with AT&T. No other single move would have as much positive impact on the iPhone’s future market share. By so doing, the iPhone will be well on its way to the same level of dominance now enjoyed by the iPod.

The MDJ vs. MacFixIt

Posted on by

There exists a rather odd Macintosh-related publication named MDJ.

I say odd because, first of all, unlike almost every other publication on the Web, you cannot actually read the publication from a Web browser. You must subscribe to it (at a fee of $30/month) and then receive the publication via email.

Its name is also a bit odd. The MDJ name originally stood for Macintosh Daily Journal. As I understand it, the publishers were at some point legally barred from using the full name, so they shifted to the abbreviation as its official name.

The publication is also odd because, despite the suggestion that it is a daily publication, its actual publication schedule has been anything but daily. I receive a complimentary subscription to the MDJ. Unless I somehow missed receiving issues, there has only been one issue each for September and October. That’s not even close to weekly.

Further, the MDJ’s Web site may leave you wondering whether they still publish at all. For example, this page states: “Offices were closed for much of the second half of October, 2005. Issue production is scheduled to accelerate in November 2005.” That’s nice to know—except that it is now November 2007! Who is in charge of keeping their Web site current?

All of that said, the MDJ is a worthy publication, at least when it manages to publish. It offers a wealth of technical information about the Mac that is rarely duplicated elsewhere. I still look forward to each issue.

But the MDJ, largely through the voice of its publisher Matt Deatherage, can also be quite vicious. When Matt disagrees with something or somebody, he too often expresses his disagreement by resorting to a level of insult that would make Rush Limbaugh blush.

When I read the MDJ, I attempt to sift the valuable information from the vitriolic rhetoric with which it is intermingled. And I move on. But I could not do so today.

There is an article in the current MDJ regarding MacFixIt, a Web site devoted to providing troubleshooting information about Apple products. The article is so unjustifiably vicious, that I could not let it pass without comment. Actually, at least as of today, the article has not yet been published in an MDJ issue. Instead, the article was extracted from a forthcoming MDJ and posted online, available to anyone for free. The MDJ took this unusual step because of what it claims is “the public importance” of the article and “the requests we’d probably get to send it to other people.” I don’t know how many requests they would have gotten, but a search of Google this morning came up with very few links to this article, suggesting that it may not be as important or in demand as they may have thought.

I also found it odd that, out of all the useful and truly important information that the MDJ publishes, the only article in many many months that the MDJ has deemed important enough to make available for free is one that attacks another Web site. I have to wonder whether their motivations here are truly to provide a public service (I leave it to you to decide).

Before I continue, I need to interject a disclaimer. I am the founder of MacFixIt. Thus, you might suspect that I am biased in my reactions to the MDJ article. I am sure I am. There is no denying this. But that doesn’t mean I am wrong. I would also add that I sold the Web site in 2000 and have had nothing to do with the main content of the site ever since. I do write an occasional column or tutorial (which always includes my byline), but I have no hand in any other part of the site—including the content that the MDJ is criticizing. So I am not feeling personally attacked here.

This at last brings us to the specifics of the article. The MDJ is upset with MacFixIt’s recommendations regarding how best to install Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) as well as related advice regarding possibly incompatible software (such as DiskWarrior). The article contends that MacFixIt is overly alarmist in its concerns and thus makes unwarranted recommendations (such as to avoid the standard Upgrade method for installing Leopard).

Truth be told, if I had to take sides, my position would be closer to the MDJ’s view than to MacFixIt’s view. But there remains room for differences of opinion here. Certainly there is reason for caution in how you upgrade to Leopard. Even Apple points out, in a support article, that a not uncommon situation could result in a persistent blue screen at startup after upgrading to Leopard. Doing an “Archive and Install” rather than a standard Upgrade would likely avoid this. Other sites have expressed similar cautions (here is one example). It’s not just MacFixIt.

In any case, you should be able to disagree on such matters without resorting to name calling, as the MDJ does when it calls MacFixIt “stupid” and “despicable.” The very title of the article is: “The despicable MacFixIt.”

But I don’t want to debate here who is ultimately right or wrong on this installation question (or the related DiskWarrior issue). Nor do I want to linger on the matter of name calling. What I found most scurrilous about the MDJ article is its assertion that MacFixIt is engaged in deliberate deception, offering alarmist information that the site knows to be false or misleading, all in an attempt to increase its revenues. This claim is completely false.

What is true is that MacFixIt’s view of the world can become a bit distorted by all the email it receives. Especially when a new OS version is released, the site is inundated with emails about installations that failed for one reason or another. Such problems can even plague veteran Mac users and experts, as noted in a column by Bob LeVitus. The causes here may often turn out to be something other than the Installer itself. Still, at some point, it is hard for the MacFixIt staff not to take a skeptical view of the installation process. If bypassing the standard Upgrade in favor of alternative methods appears to bypass many of the reported problems, it is understandable that they would recommend these alternatives.

It’s not unlike a policeman who, after years on the beat and seeing one crime after another, becomes increasingly cynical and begins to view almost everything as potentially dangerous. He may wind up recommending safety precautions that others deem unnecessary. But he is not doing so in an attempt to deceive.

This, I am certain, is the worst-case scenario rationale for MacFixIt’s position. They may sometimes be overly alarmist. And they may make mistakes. But they are most often correct and continue to provide a valuable service to the Mac community. In any case, their advice is always honest and genuine. The MDJ should be ashamed of itself for suggesting otherwise. If anyone is despicable in all of this, it is not MacFixIt.