29 posts tagged “iphone”

The applications in the AppStore are continuing to impress me. The apps we've all used over time are getting better.  New apps are appearing constantly, and there are some pretty amazing ones coming out.

When the AppStore was first released, a lot of people were disappointed with the quality of the applications found there.  For every solid app, there seemed to be 100 that just weren't very good.

RIM, maker of the Blackberry, is apparently hiring Cocoa engineers.  And this is another reason why I don't like RIM.

The other day I was told that "other companies will release touchscreen devices", as if that's all the iPhone has going for it. In fact, the touchscreen is a liability which happens to be offset by other features. Competitors who only ape the touchscreen without working hard on the interface will actually end up with a less competitive device than if they stuck with a traditional keypad.

Let's be clear about the tradeoffs here. The soft keyboard is harder to type on because it provides no tactile feedback. But by making the device into one big screen, video and applications can be designed differently and better. To further tip the scales, Apple has made the keyboard guess what you meant to type so when you fat finger a response, the phone can prevent you from having to correct.

It's doing it as I type this very post, in fact.

Now. Let's say a competitor launches a device with a flat screen to reap the same benefits. Video would still look great and support more codecs. Awesome. But will it connect to iTunes? Not legally.

So you have a device with no iTunes music or video and applications designed by - who? Java developers? Windows? They've had their chance to prove they can write strong applications on the phone or the desktop, and in my judgement, most can't.

So no iTunes, applications that I'm assuming won't be great, and you're still stuck with a soft keyboard. All the pain with none of the benefit.

And then there's multitouch. I don't know what patents Apple has, but if the clickwheel was never legally copied, I bet a lot of the multitouch interface will be similarly locked down.  Competitors are going to need a lot more than a touchscreen to compete with Apple.

Javascript on the iPhone will be able to register gestures, just like native iPhone apps.  This means any webpage, without any download, will be able to offer a very powerful experience.

This brings up questions of interoperability.  And clearly no one's going to make a website that only works for the iPhone.  Yet.  But the iPhone's functionality is so far beyond any other browser, companies will be presented with two options:  make a normal website and miss out on iPhone features, or duplicate your website entirely.

We're not talking about run of the mill duplication here.  It's not like the late 90's where you fixed IE bugs on indexIE.html and Netscape bugs on indexNS.html.  It will be an entirely different experience from top to bottom.

Location is going to be fun, but it will be opt-in.  Your phone isn't going to magically know the instant you arrive at work.  One, because the current iPhone only knows your location within a large area.  Two, because apps aren't going to run in the background.  But this is fine.  You can do a lot with the technology without pinpointing your exact precise location.

We're going to start seeing some cool games with totally different control schemes.  People are comparing the iPhone to the DS Lite, but it's not a great comparison.  The iPhone can accept multiple inputs, not just one.  And it doesn't use a stylus, it uses fingers, which are much larger.  Also, the accelerometer.

It's so much easier (for me, anyway) to dream up and spec out applications than it is to actually code them.  I'm wondering if I should get some venture capital, hire a few great developers, and get some ideas moving.  The problem is, I'm not ready right now.  Maybe I'll catch wave two of the gold rush.

I have a lot of iPhone app ideas.  Here's one:  an application that gives you customized traffic reports.

I almost bought an MP3 player in 2000, when most players were ugly, hard to use, and had overall poor quality.  But I was rewarded for waiting, because a year later Apple came out with the iPod, which was a high quality product.  I bought one the first week they were on sale.

And I was happy.  For me, it was never about joining an exclusive white earbud club.  When I saw someone else with the earbuds (something that happened with much higher frequency than I was expecting), we didn't have a secret handshake.  We just geeked out over how awesome the thing was.  How many songs it could hold.  How small it was.  What a great product it was.  We were genuinely enthusiastic because it was a great product and it was worth getting excited about.

So then iPods became ubiquitous, and I was thrilled.  More accessories!  Lower prices!  Proof that the mainstream public will actually pay for quality!  It was a win for good design, loose DRM, and music lovers everywhere.

So I was amazed when I saw some people trade in their iPods because they were perceived as "too mainstream".  For many years, and even now, no other player trumped the iPod's level of overall quality.  Yet some people will actually use a lesser product just because they want to feel like an individual.  I don't get it.  Of course, some people just don't like the iPod, which I understand.  But to like the iPod but pick another device for how rare it is?  It makes no sense.

And now the same thing is happening with the iPhone.  If you're looking for an amazing device for mobile internet access, including email, weather, stocks, and so on, the iPhone is hard to beat.  And as a bonus, you can make phone calls with it.  Many people agree that it's a great device, and so Apple has sold millions in a short amount of time.

But now I'm already hearing people saying they don't like being part of the iPhone crowd.  They don't feel special anymore.  Sure, the iPhone is great, better than anything on the market by far.  But too popular.

So they downgrade to a RAZR.  Which is insanity.

I must be missing the appeal of standing out.  My motivations are different - after struggling with awful phones and MP3 players, I just want a device that is well-designed.  And I don't mean its color or shape, I mean how it works.  And I'll feel this way even when Apple sells its 50 millionth iPhone.

Most people I know are morally opposed to custom ringtones on cell phones.  And I am too, when the clip chosen is particularly obnoxious*, like the chorus of a Jefferson Airplane song ("DON'T YOU WANT SOMEBODY TO LOVE?!") that plays when my mother-in-law gets a call.

But ringtones can actually help you realize increased usability when using your phone, by allowing you to make decisions about the call before even seeing the screen.  Simply assign a different ringtone to each contact or classification of contact ("Mom" or "Family", for example) and you will immediately know how to respond without fumbling through your pockets or purse, just to look at the screen and say "Oh, I don't want to answer this."

I have a few tips based on what I did today.

First, assign a generic ringtone for most calls.  In my case, the generic ringtone is a simple "beep.  beep.   beep.  boop." with some slight reverb.  I made it myself, because nothing on the market is as subtle as I was looking for.

Next, make your ringtones good.  Lyrics usually ruin them.  Try to find something instrumental, basic, and not too heavy.  Also, use sound editing software like Garageband to make sure the loop fades out.  This makes ringtone looping sound more like an ebb and flow of sound rather than a cacophony chopped up into bits and spit out in rapid succession.  Remember, the only people that hear the loop multiple times in a row are your co-workers when you leave the phone on your desk.  Be nice.

Next, assign ringtones to users or classes of users.  I have a ringtone of birds chirping that represents "people that don't usually call me".  My wife gets a nice little guitar loop.  One of my friends gets bubbles.  All nice and subtle, and distinct from others.  The more special ringtones I assign, the more usefulness I get out of the generic ringtone.  "Oh, my generic tone is going.  Well, it can't be anyone I care about, so I'll check my voicemail later."

Finally, set up special cases.  I have a blacklist tone that's basically a 1 second long foghorn-esque sound that immediately fades out and is followed by 39 seconds of silence.  This is the kind of ringtone I can easily miss or ignore.  It doesn't loop before it goes to voicemail, and there's only enough sound to tell me it's someone on my black list.  Right now it's filled with recruiters' phone numbers because I'm not looking for work.

I have another special case (using a fade-in/fade-out riff of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", which surprisingly sounds a lot like a telephone) for people whose call I am eagerly awaiting.  The ringtone stands out more than most, so I can use it when I don't want to miss a call.

Using these basic tricks, I've added to the usefulness of my cell phone.  I hope it helps someone else think differently about the benefits of custom ringtones.

*A lot of people love setting their ringtone to a loud, jangly, blown-speaker version of an old-style telephone.  They claim to use this setting out of protest or out of a nostalgic longing for a time when phones all sounded the same.  They claim that it's the purist's ringtone, that phones have gotten more annoying, and they're standing firm against the tide.

The irony is that the jangly old-style telephone ring is actually more jarring and annoying than most default ringtones.  If you want a ring that proves you were alive in the 20th century, go for it.  But if you're trying to be less annoying, there are better choices.

Like my "beep.  beep.  beep.  boop." one, for example.  It's really quite nice.

I just watched some CNN video discussing whether or not the iPod headphones and iPhones are toxic.

It was interesting seeing how the information got layered in.

First, we were told there was some troubling news for Apple that says that iPod headphones and iPhones themselves may be toxic.  Then we learn that it's the iPod cords, not the earbuds themselves.

Then we learn that the materials in these products have been banned in California, especially in toys.  And Apple has been sued.

Then we're told that Greenpeace opened an iPhone looking for toxic chemicals and found them.  .1% is considered the upper level of acceptability and iPhones have 1.5%.

Things aren't looking good for Apple at this point.  But then:

We're told that it's hard to quantify how much of a risk these things really are.  The testing has only been on animals up until this point.  Studies are inconclusive regarding human contact.

And then we learn that to release the bad chemicals, you need to heat or scrub your iPod cables.  The anchor even asks "would you have to heat your iPhone to get this type of poison in?"

And then the resident expert says "It's a good question.  We don't know.  These studies have been done on rodents."

He goes on to say how little we really know about this stuff, and that Apple is going to be completely removing one of the two bad chemicals in their phones by 2008.

And then, at the very end of the segment, the anchor clarifies something.

"But just to point out, in this study, the rodents were actually fed the chemicals, right?"

It turns out that is correct.  And it's unclear if skin contact or breathing it in is harmful at all, even to rodents.

The anchor seems to understand how silly this segment is, and starts to close it down.  "So the immediate takeaway from this is 'don't eat your iPhone or earbuds.'"

Despite the fact that the expert just admitted that breathing in or skin contact hasn't shown ill effects, the expert adds  helpfully "Or breathe it in!"

Wow.

So something called iTunes Radio is coming. From least exciting to most exciting:

1. It could be a way to play streaming radio stations to your iPhone. If you're on wifi.

2. A way to use "back to my mac" to stream your home computer's music to you no matter where you are. If you're on wifi.

3. A music subscription service. Unlimited music for $20/month. If you're on wifi.