technoslut

Everyone is still trying to find the right way to do it for the average person.

Whomever does this right will become dominant and make a lot of money. The closest I've seen is Any.Do and Omnifocus. The latter may be too complicated for the average user and it is a premium product.

The ratings were particularly low before it went native. I know because I have a Gmail account in Mail.app and didn't use it because of this.

It's one thing not to listen to MG Siegler complain. It's another to excuse everyone else who complains on the App Store. They may not know the reason but they know the effect.

I assume the current Gmail is mostly written in native code because it is faster and there are elements in it that don't exist on the web site.

The original was just a wrapper for the web site which had unusually high negatives from users and reviewers alike. I never used it since I read the reviews before I actually downloaded it.

Maybe I'm wrong but, when I consider apps, I also consider gaming a part of the equation as well, since they are the most popular apps. We've already seen OnLive fail because the web is simply not ready to handle the tasks of real-time gaming for enthusiasts.

>Google hasn't "miserably" failed, they use the same basic strategy that LinkedIn does; namely, a they make hybrid mobile apps where they mix both native and HTML5 components to get the best performance and flexibility. It's worked quite well for them.

Maybe I'm mistaken but Google released an official Gmail app on iOS that was basically HTML. Everyone hated it. The same goes for the situation with GMaps. Virtually no one used the web app and now Google Maps is the top ranked free app.

>The future is bright for HTML5 apps, clearly. There will come a time when everyone's phone is fast enough to run apps like the FB clone Sencha made and the need for native apps will start to diminish.

I believe you're wrong. The question isn't whether HTML can keep up with what exists today but what is offered in the future natively.

We are already living in a world with data caps and it will be so for the foreseeable future. That alone hinders the capabilities of the web. We're not even including the distrust that consumers have for paying for something unless it is through a system owned by Apple, Amazon, Google and MS. This is even including Gen Y users.

I have no doubt that the web is the future but the future is a ways off. There are just too many obstacles that are in the way currently.

This wasn't the issue I replied to otherwise I would agree with you.

>Apple will NEVER reach the search domain expertise of Google, and Maps is too valuable to let turn into a complete debacle, as Apple has learned.

How can you possibly say that? How was Android 1.0 compared to what it is today? Or Windows 1.0? In your view no one should start anything if they aren't immediately good at it.

What should be questioned is Apple's dedication to Mpas. If they're not interested in creating a high-quality mapping solution then they should give up.

What Apple should do is buy a company to provide the mapping solution for them. The same goes for Nuance. Core technologies of your OS should not be left to a third party.

You presented the wrong problem. In your situation Apple gave them something they didn't ask for and was an incremental upgrade to a 20 year-old way of the solution.

Society's problems, from Louis C.K.'s POV, is that everyone expects everything to be faster and they always expect to be amazed. As we all know, that occurs very rarely in technology.

You obviously never held seen an iPsd mini or held it in comparison to an 7" tablet. There is a noticeable difference in screen size.

>because in my mind the bigger display size is actually a disadvantage

That's your opinion. The other opinion held is that, by the majority of consumers, the iPad 10" is more desirable than the iPad mini.

You're giving some kind of ridiculous argument which misses the point. Average people don't like PCs and 7" screens are still too small otherwise the Nexus 7, or other 7" tablets would be more popular.

That's not to say there aren't use cases for a smaller screen but the public at large doesn't care about how fast they can type.

Companies today will adapt more quickly to making their employees happy than being efficient.

To be fair, classical music suffers in general when it comes to availability.

For two months I was looking for 8 CD box set of 'The Budapest String Quartet Plays Beethoven' to be available anywhere as a download. I had to resort to buying the box set, ripping it and fixing the tags myself. I paid far less than I would have but I paid it back in hours of getting everything right.

You say "they" like all advertisers support this initiative. They don't. I was careful not to include all.

I can assure you that not everyone will follow it. Google is a part of NAI and they were found guilty by the FTC to be circumventing Safari preferences.

Growth, or lack thereof, affects stock value which also can affect future talent employment and current employees. While the iPad may have future growth ahead, many will not pay the unsubsidized price for the iPhone, which is where most of Apple's current valuation lies.

Rumor has it that Apple is only getting ~25% margin on the iPad mini which is unprecedented.

Advertising companies can be shameless. What makes you think they ever would have respected DNT even if was opt-out?

I don't think that Apple is protecting the iPod touch but they are definitely are protecting iPhone margins. ThiPod touch is selling less year over year.

Apple's growth is starting to decrease. They're no longer getting 100% year over year growth for iOS devices. Even Gruber assumed the 3GS would be available in poorer countries but it hasn't.

Apple is going to have to eventually find growth beyond the iPhone and iPad unless they're willing to lose subsidies for the iPhone or take less margins for the iPad to increase growth.

While this article is interesting, the more interesting story is John Gruber's soul searching on how he feels about the iPad mini – which is where I assume you got the article from.

Three quotes from three stories on Daring Fireball:

>That’s a little more expensive than I expected — I thought they’d at least hit the $299 mark with the entry-level Wi-Fi model.

>We shall see. But remember the iPod Mini, which debuted to similar reactions in January 2004 — it was deemed too expensive compared to the better-spec’d regular iPod that cost just $50 more.

>“Better but costs more” is a gamble. “Better and costs the same or less” is a sure thing. And the iPad is hard to compare to any previous Apple product other than the iPod. The iPod and iPad didn’t enter mature markets — they entered nascent markets with no strong competitors and established themselves as unquestioned market leaders. The iPad Mini’s $329 starting point leaves a price umbrella in tablets that Apple never left for MP3 player competitors.

I think that Gruber disagrees with the price even though price margins has always been their approach.

I don't consider you being normal. Most that do speak English don't understand programming. You're more likely to be the exception to the rule.

I wonder if Japan suffers from a younger generation or a something being lost in translation. I'm reminded of this article:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/24/3177332/ia-oliver-reichens...

>Japanese web or app design is not comparable to Japanese art, graphic design or architecture. I could fill a page explaining why. It has to do with the way Japanese read, with the corporate fear of doing something different, and with the generally low level of design for the masses.

>One reason why Japanese web and app design feels weak is that technology requires good active and passive knowledge of English. English is the lingua franca of contemporary web and app development, both of our tools and our discourse. Even if you master English-based Objective-C or JavaScript, if you are not able to communicate with the international community of developers and designers, you miss out on what is desirable, even what is possible. Japanese developers and designers that don’t speak English are trapped within the relatively low level of tech and design that currently reigns in the Japanese corporate world.

-----

>Even the Japanese companies’ strengths matter less now, as consumers have lost the willingness to pay a premium for quality.

This is not true or Apple would not be as successful as they are today. In some areas foreign manufacturers have caught up enough where quality is less of an issue such as TVs. Consumers now value the TV less. This is not true of smartphones, tablets, or cars. The latter is an area that Japan still carries a heavy amount of influence.

>Build quality of this level is inherently luxurious, IMO.

I don't know what that means. If you're saying that all smartphones at this level are luxurious then why do you care that the term 'jewelry' is being thrown around?

>Which was that I prefer objects that wear well to objects you must protect with cases that sort of defeat the purpose of having something of such high aesthetic quality.

Your point makes less sense to me. When has metal been lees durable than plastic? Metals traditionally dent and plastic cracks. I view the latter as being far worse.

I consider this curious excuses.

>Gruber describes the jewelry or fine watch-like quality very well. But I don't wear jewelry or fine watches.

Being like jewelry isn't jewelry. The reference is to the build quality.

>but there's something about old original Motorola Droids that are at this point beaten up and worn that have a really nice aged, aesthetic weight to them.

No tech device is resistant to get beaten up. This is why there is a very healthy iPhone case market.

>Maybe it's more that I don't want to feel that precious about these objects.

These are phones. They are supposed to serve your purpose and not the other way around.

You're right but you gave the wrong example. A good example would be the Xperia P. There are other phones as well with a metal shell.

In all honesty, I have no idea for what reason Apple hands out their phones for reviews but the most intriguing reviews of Apple devices are from Mossberg, Gruber and Anand in no particular order.

I do give credit to The Verge in having the best video reviews on any given topic. I find that The Verge can get too verbose in reviews. I don't mean that it contains too many words but much are used in waste.

I agree somewhat but I think it's more than that. Apple made a specific choice to concentrate first and foremost on experience. On the PC we sacrifice speed and fluidity for running numerous applications at once unless you're running a high end machine.

All of us have experienced how much you want to tear your hair out over lag (especially in iTunes). I think iOS eases that experience because there only is so much you can do at once and you always feel like you're in control in an environment that Apple actually controls.

Cuban always struck me as an attention whore. As always it's both. He can help a charity while putting his name out there.

Remember that this was just one agent's computer. We shouldn't forget too quickly about the Carrier IQ fiasco.

A reasonable assumption, besides Apple, is Facebook. With all the information these services have the easiest part may be to acquire your home address.

Do we really need to go into tired cliches of what kind of people own which device? We don't even know how this information was acquired.

The Xbox 360 also had significant hardware problems that weren't alleviated until price did not become an issue for MS which is how it's always been on consoles.

>The only "huge negative impact" that I can see from this is pushing the hardware manufacturers to innovate harder and do better with the use and distribution of the software.

MS can't have it both ways unless they want to become Apple. You can't ask an OEM to innovate and take most of their profits away in a race to the bottom market. It's simply not fair.

MS is going to have to make a choice in the future of who they want to become. They can't slam Google a year ago for what they are doing now.

I'm not sure how MS can find a way out but they had better do so soon because the future is being decided during MS's conflicted beliefs and the risk is greater than just losing Windows dominance.

I'm angry about all of these stories making it to the HN front page whether it favors Apple or not. There are other stories that are more newsworthy. This has been going on for two years and has affected the lives of no one. It is only meant to push whatever cause you believe.

I thought my reply to whom I originally commented to stated this. I don't come to this site looking for stories that is only to incite a rooting interest. I come here for things that matter to everyone even though the bias is towards technology.