Apple

Apple’s A4 SoC: awesome, but barely

It was a slow Monday, but the one thing worth noting is the supposedly new information about Apple’s custom iPad chip. It appears as though all of the high hopes we had for the iPad’s processor have been shot out of the sky by recent rumors about the System-on-a-Chip (SoC). Information has slowly leaked out about the processor since the annoucement on the 27th of January. First there was the definition of custom silicon versus a custom chip, then there were rumors that it wasn’t designed by the team from P.A. Semi, and finally we have a somewhat less blurry picture of the chip from Ars Technica and a few of their sources. Brace yourself–they claim that it’s not as awesome as it used to be.

Ars explains in the article something that we’ve been saying since our initial analysis of the iPad: it’s not the hardware that will make it popular, it’s the software. We obviously agree: the software expandability of the App Store on a device as large as the iPad will make it tremendously popular. We still wish that Apple would loosen up their approval process a bit, but there’s a lot of great software in the App Store nonetheless.

So what’s not awesome about the SoC? Well, it may not be the chip we thought it was. Ars says it’s definitely not cutting-edge: far from it, actually. The only impressive feature is the lack of features this chip has built-in. If Ars’ sources are correct, it actually runs on the ARM Cortex A8 instead of the A9 as originally assumed. The author also claims it to be single core — no extra oomph for the iPad. It’s also running the PowerVR SGX GPU instead of the newer Mali GPU some analysts predicted. While that’s still a pretty decent SoC, it’s nothing amazing… and that’s probably why Apple’s been fairly secretive with the specifications.

The iPad is limited in hardware: that actually helps the SoC perform better and consume less energy. At this point, there’s no camera that we know of (that could still change between now and the launch). The multitouch display uses one Input/Output channel, the device connects to your computer and charges via one I/O channel, and the video out is sent along an analog channel. That’s not much for I/O and requires very little from the SoC itself. Modern SoC’s ship with many more capabilities than the iPad needs at this point… that could be the driving reason for Apple to develop custom silicon. They wanted to offer us the best battery life possible by building a chip that had just enough hardware to make the device run. That’s a pretty good strategy, but we’re not sure it’s worth the billion dollar price tag that some analysts claim.

Limiting hardware limits future potential. We think the handicapped A4 is possible but we don’t think it’s in Apple’s best interest. If they really did strip out everything non-essential to the functionality of the device, we’re looking at another re-design if they decide to add more features in the future. Again, that’s a huge issue if a SoC really costs a billion bucks to produce. Everyone wants a camera in the iPad… everyone. Why would Apple invest so much money into a first generation device and do it again for the next model. Take a look at the iPod and the iPhone: each gained considerable amounts of traction and features with time. Actually, the more we think about it, the more intelligence Ars’ theory loses over time.

It’s great to have sources that want to share this kind of information with you, but we need to seriously re-examine how we share that information as truth, rumor or possibility. Not once did Ars mention the reliability of their sources. Not once did they mention the fact that they’re still guessing because no one will truly know until we can take it apart. In fact, they really started two more rumors: it’s running an ARM Cortex A8 and a PowerVR SGX GPU. We already knew the potential makeup of the iPad SoC, we won’t know what it really is until we see it, so why not add more speculation to the news-hungry internet? Why not?

The ultimate truth: yes, it’s possible that Ars’ sources and speculation is correct, but don’t hold it as fact just yet. Until the iPad comes out, we can only hope for the great hardware we initially thought was in the device. Once we have ours torn apart, we’ll let you know what we find. Until then, drink a beer, relax… and maybe stop turning nothing into nothing that makes money.

Source

Steam: coming to a Mac near you… eventually.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Steam, it’s a game distribution platform that has revolutionized the way PC users purchase, play and share games. Each user has an account that can be accessed from any machine, and thus you can play any of your games on any machine. By machine, we mean PC. The titles are always current, and the Steam platform streamlines the shopping process for you. I’ve actually purchased games I had never seen at the store because they were featured on Steam and they looked great.

My gaming days are nearly behind me, but I still get caught up in a great game every now and then… and when I was a PC, Steam was my platform of choice. I grew up building, repairing and gaming on the PC… I eventually switched to Mac for my music endeavors about 6 years ago now. True gamers have always been disappointed with the gaming abilities of the Mac: unless you want to play older titles, World of Warcraft or niche games similar to PopCap’s offerings, there’s really nothing here for us. I’m the owner of a Mac repair shop (check it out in the sidebar) and I run a blog devoted to Apple products… but I still game on the PC, using Steam’s distribution platform.

Gizmodo reported this morning that a few members of the Steam forums found several references to OS X in the latest beta release of the software. They specifically found Mac icons related to the close, minimize, and maximize icons of OS X windows. There has also been discussion about the replacement of Valve’s web engine Trident with the very mac friendly WebKit. These two facts don’t mean that Steam is definitely coming to the Mac — WebKit can be used on any platform, and pictures are just pictures — but it’s still encouraging to deem it a possibility. Not too long ago, Steam and Apple discussed bringing their games to the Mac and it really wasn’t the result we were looking for… both parties went their different ways.

Even if we do see Steam come to the light, we probably won’t see the popular gaming titles follow suit right away. It is up to the developer to make their games OS-independent and not many of them have been so keen on that up to this point. Realistically, the Mac market share is still rather small compared to the PC counterpart… and the people who want to play these games know that the PC is the only way. We’re hoping that Steam’s inclusion of the Mac will give developers a better option for Mac distribution. In the end, gaming has never been a priority for the Mac. I’m sitting here with a brand new, awesome 27-inch iMac and it only has a 256MB video card. That’s pretty sad, and it definitely wouldn’t play Crysis at a decent FPS.

Apple’s dictatorship has lasted long enough

By now, almost everyone is familiar with the fact that Apple “allows” us certain privileges with the iPhone OS. Be warned: this is an editorial piece that will most likely anger some and affirm others.

Apple has become drunk with power… so drunk, in fact, that they honestly believe their users will put up with anything they do. What will it take for all of the Apple fanboys to get pissed off, or are we forever pathetically committed to a company that thinks it can control our every move? I’m surprised that we haven’t hit the point of revolution already.

Take for example this past week’s removal of boob apps from the App Store: the totals for app removal are well over 5,000 at this point. Anything that references boobs, or has any sort of “sexual” content within the app has been removed from the store. Apple essentially decided to remove anything that could possibly turn us on. How can they really determine what turns us on? Even after this removal, we can still find applications with half naked men washing cars — this definitely doesn’t turn us on but could still be considered offensive material in some circles. They supposedly received so many complaints about the content in the store that they commenced operation “App Store Boob War.” In this war, we’ve run into a lot of civilian casualties, but somehow we’ve missed the all-important, ever-offending targets. Someone explain why an innocent clothing company’s app can be removed for showing swimsuit apparel but the Playboy and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit apps still remain in the store unscathed by the barrage of policy changes?

Phil Schiller, exercising his usual damage control, tried to explain that “well-established” applications have remained in the App Store because… they’re well established. This tells us it’s okay for big brother Apple to approve applications with tremendous capital and political pull but the small guys get screwed. Anyone else see issues with that? That doesn’t show us the freedom we’ve come to expect from a capitalist country where the small guy can make it big. No, that’s a dictatorship. We might as well be living in China where the government thinks it’s okay to filter our ability to access online content. Isn’t that what Apple has done here?

Let’s go back a few months: Apple has consistently denied companies access to the App Store because of possible conflicts with their current or future offerings. To name just a few, Google Voice and other applications of the sort were denied access because Apple believed it would cause customer confusion. VoIP applications were initially barred from using AT&T’s 3G network. Sure, one could argue that the 3G restriction had more to do with AT&T than Apple, but Apple is the one who’s ultimately doing the banning. Back even further, Podcaster was an application that wanted to give us better control over our podcasts: it was denied access for duplicating a functionality that didn’t even exist in the iPhone OS at that point. Apple wanted to offer a service like it in the future, so they killed it and all of the effort the developer put into the application. What’s to prevent them from claiming duplication of our great ideas if there’s never been any previous documentation? They have the last say; we have nothing.

What about the Jailbreak community? The general argument for Jailbreak is this: people want to get more out of their devices so they Jailbreak it in order to do with it as they please. Shouldn’t we be able to do that without modifying the stock software? Shouldn’t we be able to use the hardware we purchase on any carrier by default? Even if we spend the extra money to buy an iPhone out-right, we still have to unlock it for use with T-Mobile in the U.S… other countries have it a little easier. The unlock process is never an easy task: we’re always playing cat and mouse to keep our devices running the latest software and remain unlocked.

Apple also tries to stupid-proof all of their devices. By doing so, they lock down features and innovation that could easily result in the next big advancement of the iPhone OS. Themes are a pretty big request among the Jailbreak community as well as tethering (for AT&T customers), stronger parental controls and easier access to information with apps like IntelliScreen. IntelliScreen and better parental controls could easily make their way into the next version of iPhone software, but theming is probably another stupid-proof restriction that Apple hasn’t implemented because they don’t know how. That’s what we ran into with copy and paste; they spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to make it work with an “Apple” interface. Even now, we find ourselves trying to copy things that won’t copy: partially developer issues but there’s definitely not a global copy and paste interface for the iPhone quite yet.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg… we could seriously go on for another 1,000 words re-hashing the idiosyncrasies of the iPhone OS, but we’ll stop and move on to some possible solutions.

Apple cannot and should not restrict iPhone content. Period. They need to loosen the developer handcuffs a bit and realize that there will eventually be porn on the iPhone whether they like it or not. They just need to figure out a way to implement it without causing problems for the conservative audience. We’ve already suggested that they create a separate adult store for those applications, but it seems like we’ve just been spitting in the wind. We can have R-rated boob movies in the iTunes Store but we can’t use the word “boob” in an application. We can download explicit tracks that call women hoes and bitches (I mean no offense) in the music store but if someone curses in your social app, you could be banned. We can watch sex on TV with our iPhones but we can’t show women in bikinis. Whatever happened to checks and balances. Our government has to have them, what about companies that take dictatorship a little too far?

We realize that AT&T and Apple are undergoing investigations with the FCC due to the interesting drama surrounding Google Voice… but they can only do so much. They won’t ban carrier exclusivity, they won’t force Apple to be more accepting with apps and they definitely won’t get porn on the iPhone. So what’s the point? It seems like we keep getting back to porn, but that’s not our main point: we want the iPhone OS to be an open platform. A platform that fosters innovation instead of hindering it.

Part of that hindrance is the lack of structure within the App Store approval process. Developers are afraid to be innovative because they never know what will happen when they press the submit button after completing their application. Even if they’ve read the SDK with a militant eye, their app could be denied for any reason… it’s usually followed with a vague description for repair and resubmittal. The next reviewer could claim more faults that were never expressed in the first review and their app could be stuck in limbo for weeks if not months. Why would any self-respecting developer put themselves through that kind of shame? Because Apple is extremely popular and, in many aspects, worth the risk if you have something that will sell. It’s that attitude that has made Apple into this dictator, and it’s the haphazardness that has turned many developers away from the platform. There needs to be a pre-approval process for developers: it wouldn’t be too difficult to implement and it may prove to bring more developers to the platform who are willing to be innovative.

Control isn’t everything; Apple seems to be bending over for AT&T. After what is almost a year, we still don’t have access to tethering in the U.S. with AT&T’s 3G network. We finally have some breakthroughs with the introduction of video streaming and VoIP over 3G, but that’s not enough and has not always been the case. Strong-arm Apple needs to get off the ground and go to bat for its customers against AT&T. They’re obviously not living up to the agreement that Apple theoretically put in place before signing contracts… or maybe Apple was too desperate to get a partner (at the time) that they didn’t include specific articles like tethering in the contract. We can’t really comment on the 3G data here — we’re firm believers that any network would have issues handling the iPhone traffic, even Verizon. Either way, carrier exclusivity is NOT the way to go if you want to keep your customers happy.

Okay, step off the soap box… We also have to realize that Apple is only in its third revision of the OS. Realistically, there weren’t that many changes from 2.0 to 3.0 either. Other mobile operating systems like Windows Mobile, Palm OS and Blackberry OS have had years to perfect their devices and figure out all of the issues that Apple encountered within the last couple years. Does that mean Apple should deny us the customer experience we’re looking for? No, but you could attribute the lack of “awesome” to their inexperience and tremendously quick growth.

When the iPhone came out almost 3 years ago, it appeared to be the best phone on the market and forced many other developers to improve their operating systems… and they did. They’ve answered Apple’s challenge and have come up with better user interfaces, some that put Apple’s non-multitasking, page-sliding OS to shame. All the while, Apple’s user interface has remained largely unchanged since its initial launch back in 2007. Yes, we have native applications; yes, there’s a search function; yes, there are countless other features that improved the user experience, but those “new features” have been available on other devices for years. So when does Apple stop playing catch up with the other devices? When does the real innovation start? When will the current restrictions be removed?

Right now, it’s looking like hell will freeze over and pigs will fly before Apple’s dictatorship is overthrown.

No sex in the champagne room (App Store)

We’re sure that Chris Rock never wanted us to use that joke in reference to the availability of iPhone porn, but we did anyway… sorry. Over the past week, developer after developer has been told by Apple that their applications were too risqué for the App Store. That’s one giant leap backwards for mankind.

Please remember that the statements below are generalities (We’re not obsessed with porn nor do we have any opinion on the matter).

Since the App Store launched back in 2008, we’ve heard countless stories of “overtly sexual” content being rejected and then approved. Most of this is due to policy changes in the App Store approval process — the policies really haven’t been defined well and seem to change on a daily basis.

“Wobble iBoobs” was an app that originally popped up in the App Store quite some time ago and was shortly followed by the real problem apps: all of the stupid “pasties” apps that show everything possible without nudity (no nipples). We’re not sure who turned on the switch for porn, but we do know that the amount of “pasties” apps were getting well into the double digits. Some stupid, new app showed up on the top downloads nearly every week.

Maybe the sheer number of crappy porn apps caused Apple to tighten their belts and lay out stricter rules… maybe they were pressured by your mother (yeah, she saw you). Who knows? Apple has responded to this barrage of internet news coverage with the following statement:

“Whenever we receive customer complaints about objectionable content we review them. If we find apps that contain inappropriate material we remove them from the App Store and request the developer to make any necessary changes to their apps in order to be distributed by Apple.”

We’re not sure we buy that. There’s been some pretty heavy banning in the App Store this week, and we’re sure that mom didn’t start complaining on Monday.

Click the read link… it’s worth reading the rest of this, we promise :)

Continue reading this article…

Apple ups the app size for 3G downloads

In a somewhat surprising move, Apple actually increased the 3G download size to 20MB from the previous 10MB.

If you were out and about trying to download applications on your iPhone, you were only allowed to download it if the app size was 10MB or smaller. That size was increased to 20MB today. It appears that it’s not world-wide. Some countries are still reporting the 10MB cap, but thank goodness U.S. AT&T customers are good… otherwise we might see some serious uproar.

This is great news for those of us who are away from Wi-Fi a lot. We tend to do most of our app updating and downloading while we’re waiting for stuff to happen. Waiting in line at the grocery store, check for app updates. Waiting for the guy at Starbucks to detail his no-whip venti double mocha triple espresso slim (whatever), browse the top downloads. This applies to iTunes content as well: download the latest music video while you’re in the bathroom at the movie theater. Apple is obviously working with wireless providers to make our experiences better.

This also comes at an important time before the iPad launch. Keeping an iPhone application under 10MB isn’t necessarily an easy task. Now imagine doing that with nearly triple the screen resolution. In order to make things pretty, you’re going to bump up the graphics, thus increasing the app size. It’s still going to be difficult to keep feature-rich apps under 20MB for the iPad.

Before you worry, we’re not concerned about the increased size blowing up the data networks… most people don’t pay as much attention to app updates as they should. I sometimes check my wife’s phone and she has 15-20 app updates that she’s never done. Me: umm… why? Her: it takes too long. This change won’t necessarily speed up the process but, updates or new installs, this will make a lot of people a bit happier with AT&T (and Apple).

Source

iBooks may be non-transferable

But that’s only if the publishers choose to go that route. Apple will be allowing partnered publishers access to FairPlay DRM for the books that make it into the iBooks Store. This means that Apple’s surprising use of the ePub format amounts to very little. Publishers could literally choose to wrap their books in FairPlay so that we could never transfer our iBooks to other book readers. Lame.

To give a brief history: Apple developed the FairPlay DRM scheme for the music industry and has since adapted it for their TV shows, movies and applications. Considering the last three are still DRM-laden, it’s not surprising that Apple is extending the option to the publishers. Does that mean all publishers will use it? Hopefully not, but there’s no way to tell at this point.

As time progresses, the publishers appear to be getting more and more wary of tossing their content into the iTunes store. Magazines and newspapers don’t seem to like the Apple distribution techniques — some publishers aren’t even considering the iBooks Store for eBook distribution. Resourceful people have never had issues grabbing illegitimate copies of eBooks… but what’s to stop the average Joe from going the “free” route when his buddy grabs a copy of their textbook for that semester? If iBooks weren’t wrapped in DRM, I think we’d see eBook piracy increase dramatically.

Is anyone going to want a different eBook reader after the iPad? Anything’s possible.

Source

The true cost of iPhone search

Over the last week, many news sources have picked up on the rumored amount Google is sending Apple each year for the lone spot as the iPhone search provider. Over $100 Million a year seems to be the going rate for that privilege, but people are beginning to question that partnership, some even suggesting that Apple is working on a deal with Microsoft’s new service, Bing.

Google recently rebuked those claims by stating that their relationship with Apple is a valuable partnership. Vic Gundotra, Google’s head of mobile engineering, believes they have no reason to assume the current partnership will end any time soon. No reason? How about the fact that Google built a mobile phone OS that competes with the iPhone? Maybe the Chrome browser and OS they’re working on would also complicate the relationship? What about Apple’s recent purchase of ad firm Quattro Wireless? Still no? Then what about Apple’s purchase of Placebase… a Google Maps competitor?

As things progress, Google and Apple are beginning to butt heads… often. The two companies appear to be tackling milestones from opposite ends of the spectrum: Apple started with hardware and their OS, Google started with search, and both are going mobile. Some analysts have predicted that Apple is working on a new search engine to compete with Google. Really? An over-saturated market with a clear winner… yeah, that’s a good investment.

This deal doesn’t seem very secure based on the dollar amount. In fact, the Apple-Google partnership gets worse with every new deal. The first iPhone maps deal took approximately 2 weeks… when Apple added GPS, that deal took 6 months and was a riveting tale of back-and-forth. It wouldn’t surprise us if Apple moved elsewhere for search just to speed along the political process.

Source

It looks like TUAW shares our good taste in pictures. :)

SlingPlayer Mobile finally 3G-approved!

For the SlingBox users in the audience, there’s a new reason to rejoice: SlingPlayer Mobile is available over 3G without modifications or other hacks. This will be of little value for those using this and running a Jailbroken device. With the help of a Jailbreak app, SlingPlayer users have been able to stream their content from their SlingBoxes to their iPhones for a while now. Instead of fighting this battle, it looks like AT&T has finally given in to the fact that users want to stream media.

This obviously isn’t a great solution for all as most people probably don’t own a SlingBox. Instead, this opens new doors for other applications to make their way through the Apple (and AT&T) approval process. What does this say about AT&T? No, the network probably isn’t better at handling the extra content that these users will be streaming, but it does mean that they’re allowing video streaming to the iPhone. This could be due to the on-going FCC investigations of the US wireless carriers… it’s about time. Apps like SlingBox and Skype should never be limited on the network we’re paying to use.

More limitations equal fewer innovations. Maybe Father Apple will take heed of that statement at some point?

iTunes: what goes up must come down

Warner Music Group recently explained that raising the prices for some of their music has definitely slowed down the sales growth they were seeing in the digital music world. Woah, really? We thought raising prices would make people purchase more music.

Last year, the iTunes Music Store went completely DRM-free and introduced variable pricing that allowed music labels to set prices anywhere from $0.69 a track to $1.29. In a shocking move, many decided to up their prices for the more popular tracks to the $1.29 rate.

We’re honestly happy to pay the same price for a digital download as a CD. When the digital tracks — which are cheaper to distribute than CDs — end up being more expensive than buying the album at Amazon or Walmart, why would we want to download them? Convenience? That’s proving to be a dying argument. We can buy perfectly good CDs directly from Amazon.com if we’re willing to wait… usually at a much cheaper price. Something about having the physical media still thrills us.

Warner Music Group still commented that the pricing changes have been a net gain for the company but they realized that increasing the track by track purchase price during a recession was probably a poor decision. We’d agree. The $0.99 price point works. That’s been proven time and time again since the introduction of the iTunes Store in 2003. Sure, we love to see some of the less popular tracks sell at $0.69, but 1.29 is a bit too much when we have so many other ways to obtain music.

Analysts have speculated that book publishers should heed this warning: don’t jack up prices just because you can. We won’t take that as truth until the iBooks Store actually takes off. You can read our thoughts on that here.

Source