Sprint wants customers to buy the iPhone 4S and is offering a US$100 credit for the 4S to anyone who brings in an older iPhone as a trade. Details of this trade-in offer was published by TechnoBuffalo, who received it from a trusted source. This offer is supposedly available to both new and existing customers who agree to a new two-year contract and will last until June 30.

Sprint to offer $100 towards iPhone 4S upon trade-in originally appeared on TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Fri, 18 May 2012 09:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More details

After releasing its mail app for the iPhone, Sparrow is back again with another update of its Mac email client. Version 1.6 adds the highly-anticipated support for Pop accounts, giving you a true unified inbox. There’s also a handful of minor tweaks and bug fixes that’ll make it easier for you to send and receive mail on your Mac. You can see the full list of changes on Sparrow’s blog.

Sparrow for the Mac is available from the Mac App Store for US$9.99.

Sparrow 1.6 for Mac available with POP support, more originally appeared on TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Fri, 18 May 2012 09:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More details

Apple has announced some details on the 2012 iTunes Festival in London. This 30-day music event will take place at The Roundhouse and feature free performances by Usher, Emeli Sandé, Jack White, Norah Jones and One Direction among others.

Tickets will be distributed via lottery, and fans in the UK, Ireland, France, Germany and the Netherlands can vie for a seat. Apple will stream performances to computers running iTunes and iPhones, iPod touches and iPads with the iTunes Festival app installed. The fun starts on September 1 and runs for the whole month.

Apple’s iTunes Festival scheduled for September originally appeared on TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Fri, 18 May 2012 14:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More details

The march of technology amazes me. Yeah, I’m an old guy, but it still surprises me when I realize that the amount of storage that used to fill a data center can now fit in my pocket. G-Technology’s G-Drive mobile (made by Hitachi, US$199.99 MSRP for 1 TB) is the perfect example of mass storage in a small, silent box. Read on for a review of this mobile companion and a chance to win one!

Design

There’s not much too say in terms of the design of the G-Drive mobile — it’s a slim metallic box 5 inches long, a little over 3 inches wide, and about 3/4 of an inch high. There’s no power port; the G-Drive is bus-powered by either FireWire (400/800) or USB 2.0. The device comes with cables for each connection. A single white LED on the front of the drive indicates when it is powered up and in use.

On the inside, there’s a 5400 RPM 1 TB drive with an 8 MB cache. For speed, I’d much rather see a 7200 RPM drive, but that would most likely drive up both the cost and power requirements of the drive. However, as you’ll see with the benchmarks, this is still a pretty fast drive despite the slower rotation speed of the disk.

The G-Drive mobile also comes in 500 MB ($149.99 MSRP) and 750 MB ($159.99) versions, although I’m at a loss why someone wouldn’t want to double their capacity for just fifty bucks more. I found the drive to run a bit hot — I had placed my iPhone on top of the drive at one point, and when I answered a call I wondered why the phone was so hot…

As with other drives of this ilk, the G-Drive mobile is almost completely silent.

Benchmarks

TUAW uses a standard industry benchmark to compare the I/O capabilities of disks and arrays. The benchmark uses the AJA System Test, which simulates reading and writing video. The specific test I used was the Disk Read/Write test, also known as the DiskWhackTest, set at a video frame size of 720 x 486 8-bit and a file size of 128 MB.

The drive read speeds were surprisingly fast in our benchmarks, matching almost every FireWire drive that we’ve tested (only one is shown below for space considerations). When it came to USB 2.0 read speeds, the G-Drive mobile was slightly faster than the competition across the board. Write speeds were slower for the G-Drive when connected via FireWire 800, while almost identical to other drives with a USB 2.0 connection.

Conclusion and Giveaway

If you’re the owner of a MacBook Pro and have an available FireWire 800 port, or have a FireWire-equipped desktop Mac you’d like to back up while keeping a lot of available desk space, then the G-Drive mobile will fill your requirements. Those who only have USB 2.0 ports on their Macs should spend their money on less expensive USB-only drives that offer read/write speeds in the same range as the G-Drive mobile.

Thanks to G-Technology and TUAW, you now have a chance to win one of these sweet little drives. Just fill out the entry form below (only one entry per person, please) and we’ll pick a random winner next week. Here are the rules for the giveaway:

• Open to legal US residents of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia and Canada (excluding Quebec) who are 18 and older.
• To enter, fill out the form below completely and click or tap the Submit button.
• The entry must be made before May 20, 2012 11:59PM Eastern Daylight Time.
• You may enter only once.
• One winner will be selected and will receive a G-Technology G-Drive mobile valued at $199.99.
• Click Here for complete Official Rules.

Loading…

G-Technology G-Drive mobile: Rugged, pocket-sized, and fast originally appeared on TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Fri, 18 May 2012 16:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More details

Sprint’s CEO Dan Hesse signed an estimated US$15.5 billion deal with Apple to carry the iPhone. After a less than stellar quarterly performance, the CEO is trying to quell shareholder discontent by publicly defending his decision, says a report in AllThingsD.

Speaking at an annual shareholders meeting, Hesse assured investors that “carrying the iPhone will be quite profitable.” Customers will join Sprint to get the iPhone on an unlimited plan and will stay because most people who buy the phone are happy with their purchase. The iPhone will increase the number of long-term customers with revenue-generating data plans which is good for Sprint’s bottom line. Sprint won’t see these benefits until 2015, but the CEO believes the iPhone is worth the wait.

Dan Hesse certain the iPhone will be profitable for Sprint originally appeared on TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Thu, 17 May 2012 09:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More details

If it feels like you not only have more apps on your iPhone, but that you’re spending more time in those apps, then you should congratulate yourself on being as savvy as pollster Nielsen. According to a report from the organization, the number of apps on the average smartphone increased from 32 to 41 — a jump of 28 percent — over the past year.

As you can see from the Nielsen infographic at the top of this post, the percentage of time spent by smartphone owners in apps rather than on the web has also climbed. The average smartphone user spends only about 19 percent of his or her time on the web; the rest of the time, native apps are being used.

The one other fascinating tidbit on the chart shows that the number of smartphone owners in the US has climbed from 38 million in 2011 to 84 million in 2012 — that’s a jump of 121 percent in just one calendar year.

[via Engadget]

Report: Americans have 28 percent more mobile apps in 2012 originally appeared on TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Thu, 17 May 2012 12:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More details

Update: I made a mistake about Instacast’s support for notifications in the original draft of this article. Please read my corrections at the end. My apologies, readers. –Rich

The release of Instacast v2.0 ruffled some feathers recently. Vemedio, publishers of the popular podcasting app, have taken the unusual step of switching business models with the new release. The old version of the app cost US$2.99; now it’s $0.99 for the basic version, with an in-app purchase (IAP) to upgrade to Instacast Pro for a further $1.99. However, several features that used to be in the v1.0 app, like push notifications (update: see note at end of post) and the ability to re-order podcasts in the list, have moved to the Pro version. This means existing customers who upgrade to the new releases have to pay again to access them. (I’m going to dub this tactic the Instacast Maneuver.)

Unsurprisingly, this hasn’t gone down too well with some longtime customers, who feel they are being unreasonably double-dipped. Angry one-star reviews for the latest version are accumulating in iTunes — although, to be fair, they are far outnumbered by positive reviews by people who like the new interface.

I think this is an interesting story, and it ties into something I’ve been meaning to write for a long time about the non-intuitive meanings of “ownership” in our increasingly on-demand all-digital world.

“It’s only two bucks!”

One of the most common reactions to the criticism is that it really isn’t much money and, basically, people should stop whining. As accurately stated by Harry Marks, we spend more money than this on bad coffee without blinking. Software upgrades of OS X cost $29, and Windows or Photoshop (amongst many others) can cost hundreds of dollars — does two bucks matter?

Certainly, I think it’s absolutely fair to say that it’s not a lot of money to anyone who can afford an iPhone or even an iPod touch in the first place. We’re talking about devices that cost hundreds of dollars — thousands when often-mandatory cellular contracts are added on. But…

Between my iPhone and iPad, I have at least 250 third-party apps. Many of those were free, but if just a fifth of my apps dinged me $2 via the Instacast Manoeuvre, I’d be looking at $100. That’s not chickenfeed to me and it probably isn’t to you either. So it’s my contention that even if you think $2 for Instacast 2.0 is fantastic value, there’s still a debate to be had here about value to the end user. If, like Seth Clifford, you don’t love Instacast but merely think it “sucked the least of all the [podcasting] apps”; well, then that conversation takes on a different tone.

“Support the devs”

A similar argument commonly advanced to silence critics is that Instacast is a written by a small dev who needs the money; if you like the app, is it going to kill you to pay a little more for a new version? This is the angle the Vemedio company blog takes and it’s certainly one I have some time for. Instacast isn’t a top-tier app; many iOS users don’t care about podcasts and most of the those who do are satisfied by Apple’s built-in support. By definition of what the app does, Instacast is chasing a quite small niche of users and it shares those users with a number of high quality competing apps.

So Vemedio needs to establish a regular income stream, hopefully enough to support the firm and permit future development of the app. Presumably, the users want that, so surely it’s churlish of them to complain about being asked to chip in a few bucks?

The problem is that many of them feel ripped off. Firstly, Vemedio took the unusual step of moving existing features into the extra-cost Pro version of the app. That’s a questionable decision. Secondly, because of the App Store rules, there’s no way for Vemedio to charge upgraders a reduced fee; it’s all or nothing. Which brings us to…

“It’s all Apple’s fault!”

The App Stores both Mac and iOS restricts developers to well-defined ways to make money from their software: charge upfront, charge via In-App Purchase for add-ons, and/or charge subscriptions for ongoing services. Notably missing, as veteran Mac developer Wil Shipley of Delicious Monster has written extensively, is any sort of paid upgrade option.

Imagine you’re GadgetSoft and you’ve just released WidgetThing v1.0 to great acclaim. All ten of its main features are popular. You have some great ideas for how to expand and improve it, but it’s going to take a good chunk of time and effort to do so. At the end of that effort, you’ll be able to release WidgetThing v2.0 with five new features in only one of two ways: as an in-place upgrade, meaning all your existing customers get it for free. Or as an entirely new app, in which case your existing customers have to pay all over again.

Economics theory tells us that WidgetThing v2.0 should be priced for new customers according to its 15 features, but priced for existing customers according to the extra five features it has over v1.0. It has different values to those two groups of customers, so should have different prices too.

Apple, for whatever inscrutable reason, doesn’t let app makers do this. Charging longstanding customers full whack for upgrades is likely to be perceived as gouging; giving them upgrades in perpetuity for free is no way to run a business. Inevitably, some app makers simply won’t bother. Chances are there are some fantastic v2.0 or v3.0 apps that have never left the drawing board because the developers simply couldn’t justify it economically.

But why is it so bad to just give updates away for free? Isn’t that a bit greedy? The answer is…

The race to the bottom

We only have ourselves to blame.

Picture the dawn of the App Store back in 2008 as a group of users in the middle of a big circle of developers. No-one knew how much to charge for anything; these were untested waters, an entirely new business model for consumers and creators. Nervous developers stepped up and pitched price points and users started buying apps. The savviest developers watched each other like hawks, nudging prices up and down in response to each other — but mostly down, and down, and down.

About nineteen metaphorical seconds later, the nervous circle had turned into the bellowing hustle of the NYSE’s trading floor, with everyone hollering lower and lower prices until many apps hit rock bottom: $0.99. The average price of an app today is $2.00, and the modal price is surely the dollar-store low water mark. Look at the initial iTunes reviews of any app costing more than three bucks and someone will inevitably call it expensive.

We know that many apps lose money; I have my doubts about the survey those results were drawn from but I think the general conclusion that only a lucky few devs make serious money from the App Store is a pretty common sense one. The race for the bottom — the race we all subconsciously encourage whenever we held out to buy a $1.99 app in case it goes down to $0.99 in a sale — means devs of even moderately successful apps are often left struggling for revenue.

Is it any wonder developers need to resort to every method they can think of to make ends meet?

The workaround

Surely this is all a storm in a teacup. Why can’t existing users of Instacast v1 simply not upgrade to the new version?

Well, Apple doesn’t make that very easy. There’s no way to mark a specific version as “unwanted” in the App Store upgrade screen. If you accidentally hit Upgrade on that app just once, there’s no way back — unless you have manually extracted a backup of the older version of the app from iTunes, which is less likely than ever in this era of iCloud-powered backups.

Worst of all, you have to resign yourself to never again using the Update All button. If you don’t have many apps, it might not be that much of a bother to manually upgrade, one by one, every one except Instacast. Other people, however, have hundreds of apps (I’m one) and receive dozens of updates a week (yo). Particularly given the App Store app’s baffling habit of kicking you out to the home screen after each press of the upgrade, it quickly moves through tedious and into downright irritating.

The bigger picture

So far I’ve mostly been talking about Instacast, but the issues I’m describing affect more than just that one app.

Consider Tweetie, Loren Brichter’s beloved Twitter app. I paid for Tweetie twice — once for version one and again for version two, at a cost of $2.99 each time. I was delighted with each purchase, as Tweetie was easily the best-of-breed Twitter client at the time. Until, that is, Twitter bought it, relaunched it as “Twitter for iPhone”, and eventually “blessed” it with dubious UI decisions and ads (later withdrawn) and more ads. From the second I upgraded from Tweetie to Twitter, the app I’d cherished and paid for (twice!) was gone, with no easy way to get it back.

For another example, consider the recent rumors that Rock Band for iOS would be shut down. EA claim this was “an error”, although how that’s possible is yet to be explained (particularly given this entry in the company FAQ which has since been removed).

Looking beyond iOS, EA is also famous for disabling online support in its console games, sometimes for games as little as seventeen months old. Once the servers are turned off, the entire online portion of the game stops working. The game you paid for is gone for good.

These tricky issues of ownership aren’t even just about software. Sony removed the OtherOS feature from PlayStation 3 consoles after it emerged that people were using it as a jailbreak vector. A firmware update appeared, and boom — just like that, my PS3 could no longer run Linux (and unlike many people, I’d actually installed Linux on my PS3). I could refuse the update, as long as I never wanted to play another game online. Not a great choice.

There are almost endless examples of these, and things are only getting more complicated as companies think of new ways to use and abuse the power that over-the-air updates and digital downloads give them over consumer purchases. Sooner or later, someone is going to push the envelope too far, and we’re going to have some juicy class-action lawsuits over it. Until then, caveat emptor.

But let’s return to the matter at hand — the Instacast Maneuver. I think it arose from the limitations Apple has imposed on the App Store combined with the sometimes precarious finacial situation that some app devs can find themselves in. Vemedio are far from the only developers in this situation, so I am sure other app devs are watching how this goes closely as they ponder if they will follow along this path.

Overall, though, I have to come down against Vemedio on this one (update: please see the update below.) Not for the use of In-App Purchase itself; I think that was a fairly reasonable way around the lack of paid upgrades on the App Store. What I can’t get away from the moving of features, including big ones like push notifications, away from the normal version and into the Pro. I’ve already bought a version of Instacast that does push. I don’t think it’s right to charge me, or anyone else, twice for that feature.

Update: I have accidentally propogated a common misunderstanding about Instacast, for which I must beg your forgiveness, reader. V1 of the app didn’t have true Push notifications; it used local notifications only for some basic alerting. As several of my commenters below and Raphael Fetzer on Twitter have pointed out, the more dynamic Push notificaitons in Instacast Pro are genuinely new. I am grateful for the correction. Vemedio has also announced since this post was drafted (but before it went live) that the forthcoming Instacast v2.0.1 will make Smart Playlists available for free, i.e. in the base-level, non-Pro version of the app. Finally, the In-App Purchase upgrade to Instacast Pro is currently on sale for $0.99.

In light of these changes, I humbly withdraw — and apologise for — my criticism of Vemedio above.

Instacast pricing raises hackles: are apps bought or rented? [Updated] originally appeared on TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Thu, 17 May 2012 12:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More details

Apple’s attempt to wrest control the iPhone5.com domain name from the hands of a cybersquatter has been a success. TheNextWeb reports that the company’s complaint to the World Intellectual Properties Organization (WIPO) resulted in the iPhone5.com domain being handed over to Apple.

The fact that the company has re-obtained the domain name doesn’t necessarily mean that the next iPhone will be called the iPhone 5, nor that Apple will ever use the domain name. In fact, the domain is currently being held by Corporation Service Company, a firm that specializes in brand protection and may have been used by Apple to grab ownership.

In the world of intellectual property law, it is considered vital for organizations to actively protect trademarks. In this case, the domain had been registered in 2008 by a group that operated an online forum. While registering the domain, the former owners noted that “it was not endorsed, sponsored, nor otherwise affiliated with Apple” and was “for the sole purpose of entertainment and knowledge.”

Apple hasn’t been as aggressive in protecting other domain names. It does not own iPad.com, and hasn’t attempted to take control of the name. Apple did manage to acquire iPods.com after a protracted battle, but doesn’t own iBooks.com (publishing rival Barnes & Noble does) or iBookstore.com.

With all of Apple’s intellectual property battles raging around the world, it must feel good to win a small skirmish like this.

Apple wins iPhone5.com domain name originally appeared on TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Thu, 17 May 2012 13:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More details

Most takes on real-time strategy for the App Store have to corrupt the form in some way, yet some still turn out well (see Total War Battles for a a great RTS game that takes a different turn). But Amoebattle impressively does RTS as you expect it. You choose units, send them around exploring, and tap to attack or move through the fog of war in real-time.

There are nine different unit types to be discovered during the campaign, and each has its own attributes and abilities. The graphics are cute and colorful, but the tactics are hard to master — especially near the end, when the game has no shortage of challenges to overcome.

Amoebattle is an excellent RTS title for Apple’s touchscreen devices, something that a lot of RTS fans have dreamed about ever since the iPad was first announced. It’s not perfect, but it doesn’t skimp from RTS traditions, even on a mobile device, and it holds up to them well. The game is US$4.99, in a universal version, on the App Store now.

Daily iPhone App: Amoebattle does RTS right originally appeared on TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Thu, 17 May 2012 14:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More details

Today, beloved leader Victor pointed me to this write-up over at Tidbits. Although Joe Kissel’s experience with quite so many devices (nine, I believe) falls a bit into the extremes of iOS/OS X use, the problem of dealing with distributed alarms is a real one: a single reminder can set off alerts all over the home or office. Surely, there’s got to be a better way to focus alert attention.

Victor asked if I could brainstorm some geek solutions up that might help coordinate reminders with multi-device deployment (I won’t even try to figure out “how to deal with bosses who remind you about too much stuff with shared calendars”). The idea is to let users choose reminder strategies across several devices: Macs, iPads, iPhones, etc.

The strategy brought up by Kissel was to add “do not disturb” buttons and slight time offsets to alerts. The opt-in would allow you to disable alerts either per-device or per-Apple ID. The offsets would allow users to respond to a dialog, allowing them to accept the reminder and disable triggers on other devices. The only slight problem with the time offsets approach is determining which device gets priority.

You can imagine being in bed, exhausted, sleepy and hearing a slightly long symphony of beeps that finally arrives at the iPhone on your bedside. Being able to prioritize a device (e.g. “always alert this iPhone first“) would certainly help.

I also started thinking about activity — and, specifically, giving priority to any device experiencing touches and mouse and key interaction (e.g. “always alert active devices first“). An active use pattern generally links to a human presence — the likely target of a reminder. It’s an easy way to connect alert reception to an audience.

Devices could trigger in order of most recent use, with the reminder ending once a user taps an acknowledge key. In the worst case, the reminder lasts 9 times longer than it did originally, but in the best case, only the most active device is triggered. Per Apple ID, of course. Your partner’s devices would have its own alert chain.

But that doesn’t take location into account . If your devices are idle but in distributed locations, say one at home, and one at work, which takes priority? Perhaps you’d want both to ring because there’s no a priori knowledge of your location. Or maybe you’d want it to alert at work first and then home (e.g. “prioritize work”).

And at home? If you have a device downstairs and another upstairs, they may seem to be at the same location-to-detection algorithms, but you certainly would want to be reminded of lunch no matter which floor you’re on. At the same time, you’d think devices could potentially figure out they’re clustered together.

What if Apple, in addition to slight time delays, could listen to hear alerts from triggers they know would happen on a related device in their Apple ID family (e.g. “listen for duplicate alerts”)?

You might be able to skip the active “Okay I get it” button then. Devices could actively suppress extra alerts by listening for ones in their vicinity. The problem again, would be if two Apple IDs were linked to similar reminders but didn’t share calendars explicitly.

For this, Apple could build in a “coordinate my alerts with…” option and harmony would once again reign in the land of the multi-device family.

Beepocalypse: How Apple could improve multi-device reminders originally appeared on TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Thu, 17 May 2012 15:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More details