bonaldi.me

In an interview yesterday I was asked what problem an Apple Tablet was the solution to. “It’s obvious that the iPod solved the problem of digital music,” said the interviewer, “but what does the iSlate fix?”

I didn’t have a good answer then, but after sitting up all night reading an actual printed novel, I think I do now.

When the iPod launched in 2001 there were already devices that did what it could do, more or less. There were big, clunky MP3 players with hard drives that held just as many songs, and there were tiny flash players that held 50 songs and fit in your pocket. The problem of taking your music with you was already handled, people said. You want lots of songs, get a Nomad. You want portable, get a flash player.

The iPod did both. You could have the thousands of songs, but you could also have them in your pocket. It took all the benefits of the tiny flash drives, and added the space of the hard drive.

Today, if you want to read a lot of — for want of a better term — “digital text” (like a long web page, a newspaper site, a PDF, an eBook etc) without sitting at a computer, at a desk, your choices are either laptop or smartphone. (If there’s an eReader that’s ready for prime time, especially for web browsing, I haven’t seen it yet).

Digital text is in exactly the same position digital music was in 2000. The laptop is one of the hard drive players. To use a laptop, you have to keep it largely vertical, which means you have to be largely vertical, too. Sit up straight while you’re reading the paper. Even the smallest netbooks take up much more space than a paperback, because the keyboard and screen are at right angles, and force you into clearing a large cube to use them. Think about the difference between squeezing a 15″ laptop on to a tray table on a plane or a train and just holding a magazine. The screen is large, clear and sharp, though.

The iPhone, on the other hand, is like those flash players. For reading digital text it’s already ahead: I’m doing more reading on Instapaper than anything else these days. It’s just too small, really. It’s for your pocket, not your lounge chair.

There is a space in the middle, here. As publishing moves online, you want to be able to curl up with digital text just like you’d curl up with a book: in a chair, tea in one hand, book in the other. You want to read on trains and planes, lying on your side in bed, in coffee shops, over breakfast. But the laptop’s too big and too much hassle for that, and the iPhone’s too small.

This is the problem the tablet solves. It’s digital text with the tactility of a magazine.

It’s obvious to us now that the iPod solved a huge problem. At the time, it wasn’t. After the launch, the critical consensus was summed up by Slashdot’s verdict: “No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame”. Sometimes you don’t know you have a problem until it goes away.

Looks like I was right about the duplicates functionality rejections. Google was barred from selling a Google Voice client on those grounds, and existing GV apps were pulled

The “duplicates functionality” part really means “duplicates our business model”, not “duplicates something the iPhone does”. Which stinks.

It’s possible they were forced into this by AT&T — who knows how tight the contracts are? — and were aware of how much damage they’d be doing, but were stuck between a rock and a hard place. But it’s also possible that it is capriciousness borne from hubris.

If that’s the latter, they’re badly wrong. Developers aren’t going to invest in making apps if there’s no hope of getting them onto the store, and the kind of apps that are badly lacking are the ones that are expensive. The 99¢ market isn’t entirely Apple’s fault (more on that later), but moves like this encourage it.

I suspect the huge sales volume is blinding them to what is being sold. The reason the App Store is great for Apple is not that it makes money (though that doesn’t hurt), it’s that when you’ve got an iPhone full of apps you aren’t going to switch to a Nokia when your contract expires. The apps are lock-in, the same sort of lock-in that keeps everyone on Windows.

But 99¢ ringtone apps aren’t lock-in, they’re diversions. The lock-in apps are the expensive ones, made by big developers. Who are all running far away from this mess.

Since the last time, the App store has got better (no NDA) and worse (more apps banned capriciously, like MailWrangler). There were lots of good posts on why it’s a mess, but Gruber probably comes closest to the money. Though not quite.

It’s foolish and unnecessary — the fact that iTunes is wide open to total competition on both Mac OS X and Windows hasn’t hurt it at all

Except that iTunes isn’t open to total competition, not even slightly. The jukebox is, sure, but not the stack — from store to music in your pocket. Amazon can make an MP3 store; a desktop jukebox could even tie into it. To compete with the whole thing, though, they need to be on the iPod. Or have a device that beats its 70%+ marketshare. Nobody right now is in a position to compete with all three. The battle would be a lot easier, though, if they could write custom software for the iPod. Which is why Apple’s cagy about it.

But Mail? Why on earth should Apple care if some third-party email client for the iPhone becomes wildly popular? It makes no sense

I’m not so sure. To be fair: MailWrangler getting junked surprised me a lot, even though it looks like a crappy app. Apple’s reason was the possibility of confusion, which doesn’t make much sense. Until you think about all the other apps that integrate with mail — since there’s no copy and paste on the phone, if you want to send data about you’d better hope it has a “send with mail” button. Which will always go to Mail.app.

Potential for confusion there, when Mail.app opens instead of MailWrangler? Possibly, I guess. It would sure make the phone’s integration seem junky.

I have a theory. It is more, well, emotional than logical. But it’s the only theory I can think of that makes any sense at all and fits the available evidence.

Except it does none of these things. Probably because Gruber’s looking for an over-arching theory on this (everybody who cares is too, frankly), but I don’t think there is one to be had. Apple is rejecting apps on a case-by-case basis: Podcaster for threatening the crown, MailWranger for being confusing. There is little similar between the two.

In fact his whole “it’s just the four dock apps” thing barely holds up. There are other apps that run in the background — Calendar, SMS, Maps, Clock and possibly Remote — which blows “background processing is the one factor that unites the four dock apps” out of the water.

Regardless, these are niggles with his asides, not his argument. He is right that developers will be uncertain and unwilling until the rules are clear and are stuck to. I know why Apple doesn’t want them that way, as it’s an invitation for lawyers (legal or otherwise) to start manning the barricades on behalf of RealPlayer Mobile Extreme or something, but that’s a bridge they can cross later.

This problem is a bridge they need to cross now. Because the novelty of to-do lists and RSS readers is wearing thin.

Mac developers are angry about Apple’s rejection of the Podcaster app from the iPhone’s app store. Fraser Speirs is pulling out of developing new apps. Paul Kafasis is deeply chilled by the move. Steven Frank (aping last month’s overheated Mike Ash) predicts an app store for the Mac. Dave Winer reckons this makes the iPhone an unreliable platform. Harry McCraken says this could have killed Photoshop. Chuqui doesn’t get it. Even Gruber says it’s either a disaster or proof the process is broken.

In the rejection note for Podcaster, the reason given was:

Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes.

The assumption is that this means the iTunes application, but this doesn’t add up when there are so many other apps already that “duplicate functionality”. There are calculators, notes apps, stocks apps, weather apps. Pandora does streaming radio, just like iTunes.

I think they’re talking about the iTunes store. That’s what you don’t get to compete with. Hence the reference to duplicating a “section” in the rejection note. Since when did apps have sections? The store does, though, lots of them. The iTunes Store is a big strategic deal for Apple. Would they allow Amazon to make an Amazon Music Store app? Not likely. Anything that looks like a store has to be verboten.

In fact, this makes the vetting process way more plausible. “No bandwidth hogs” always seemed a little bit lame. Apple wouldn’t care, right? “No threats to iTunes Store”? Ding. You want to make a portable music store, you’re not doing it on the iPhone and especially not on the iPod. You’ll need to build the web service, the desktop app, the phone, the phone OS and then the phone app.

This leaves the other horn of Gruber’s dilemma:

If this is truly Apple’s policy, it’s a disaster for the platform. And if it’s not Apple’s policy, then Podcaster’s exclusion is proof that the approval process is completely broken.

… and, yes, the approval process appears completely broken. The reasons given so far tell volumes about the low level of the people doing the vetting, and that speaks of the charade the process really is. (Which should have been obvious. The store is full of shite.)

Some of the calls for an Evangelist are right. Even a halfway decent explanation of what isn’t acceptable would help. But, it’s doesn’t seem like Apple employees are hiding this criteria from developers maliciously; it feels like they don’t know.

They don’t know because, again, this isn’t really about any of the half-assed reasons they’ve got for only allowing apps to install via the App Store. It is about maintaining Apple’s control so that they can stop people barging into the middle of their Greater Unified Jukebox. That’s why the whole thing is such a shambles: they’re winging it, app by app, trying to make up a coherent strategy as they go. With apparently little more to go on than “we are keeping control of what gets on the iPod. You make up some reasons why.”

Is Instapaper. It works like this:
1. Sign up at Instapaper.com and install their bookmarklet in your browser.
2. Install Instapaper on the phone via the store
3. When you see something good on the web but don’t have time to read it, click the bookmarklet.
4. Open Instapaper on the phone: it downloads and converts the page and saves it locally so you can read it whenever you like, even offline.

It’s genius, really.

So, yes, it does kill your router, most usually after 5 and a bit minutes. BT know about it. (The Home Hub is the same horrible router branded by lots of people, including Be. It’s an Alcatel Speedtouch, I think. Awful. Avoid.

Tiny post: the new 3G iPhones don’t include a stand, which you’re really going to want. (They did the same box-stripping with the 2G iPods as well)