A Bit Eclectic

It frustrates me when people complain about Apple’s stance on Flash support and the iPhone.  Overall, I agree with Apple and think it would be a terrible idea.  The iPhone is very powerful but we must remember that it isn’t a desktop or notebook computer.

The fact that many websites still use and rely on Flash is not a reason that the iPhone should support it.  You can argue that it makes a great UI, but it won’t likely transfer over to the mobile world.  The iPhone is navigated with touch alone and this can introduce problems.  Some sites that use flash require you to hover over items to see all the options.  With the iPhone there is no ability to hover over.  There are probably many other elements that wouldn’t transfer over to the iPhones method of input.  How do you reconcile these differences for the end-user?

The advocates of Flash point to flash games as a reason for the iPhone to support Flash.  This creates the same problem with controls.  How do you perform a right-click if a game requires it? What about keyboard controls.  There isn’t enough room on the screen for the game and the onscreen keyboard.  These flash games also have their own aspect ratios and dimensions, some of which may not fit nicely on the iPhone screen.  This will create more headaches than if Flash remains disabled.  Although it isn’t an ideal solution, these game developers can create native games running on the iPhone (see Canabalt for example).

The biggest issue is with battery life.  Reviews already point to the battery as one of the iPhone’s weaknesses.  With Flash running, we will only see a hit in performance.  Think of the web sites you visit and the number of flash ads they display.  These flash ads will come at the cost of battery life.  Each page will use up more processing power just to run these ads.  I would rather have a longer battery life than gain any type of Flash support.

I can’t remember any time that I’ve been inconvenienced by the lack of Flash support on the iPhone in the past two years that I’ve owned one.  I’m not saying that it never happens, but that it wasn’t a big deal or a game changer.

Canabalt:

Fantastic new $3 iPhone game. Super-simple, pixel-perfect, great music and sound. It’s an official port of this free Flash version. (I find the iPhone version, with a narrower aspect ratio and therefore less look-ahead, more challenging.)

Make sure to wear headphones when playing to get the best experience.  My most recent high score was 2787m.

(via Daring Fireball)

This is a great trend that is emerging, but I’m not entirely surprised that Apples ia approving these apps.  Apple earns more money selling iPhones and iPods then it does through the music store.  Also, I assume that a rejection would have put them on the fast track to anti-trust investigations.

Apple Approves Rhapsody App – MacRumors:

RealNetworks’ Rhapsody app has been approved and is now in the App Store. The app, which provides on-demand streaming music, had reportedly been submitted to Apple just over two weeks ago.

Jason Calacanis wrote an article, titled The Case Against Apple, where he argues against Apple’s current product line and general business practices.  I think his heart is in the right place and that he wants Apple to change and improve.  I feel that what came out was a bit off the mark with the valid points buried beneath fluff.  Marco Arment does a great job covering most of my complaints in his article, Planet Calacanis. There are a few points I would like to touch on.

There is no technical reason why the iTunes ecosystem shouldn’t allow the ability to sync with any MP3 player (in fact, iTunes did support other players once upon a time), save furthering Apple’s dominance with their own over-priced players.  Quickly answer the following question: who are the number two and three MP3 players in the market? Exactly. Most folks can’t name one, let alone two, brands of MP3 players.

Apple eventually brought iTunes over to Windows so that the iPod could be used with a seamless experience.  Using Jason’s logic, Apple should never have gained the dominant market share because the iPod doesn’t use Windows Media Player.  Other companies can develop their own media players to sync with the MP3 players they bring to market.  There is no reason that they would have to go through iTunes to make it big.  The iPod has succeeded because it works great, not because it launches through the iTunes gateway.  Users can use software like DoubleTwist to take advantage of their non-iPod MP3 players.

People can’t name the number two and three MP3 players in the market because they are happy with the iPod.  I don’t think it’s because they don’t sync through iTunes.  iTunes has much that needs to be improved.  Apple should focus on this instead of adding support for hundreds of media players that I will never use.

Think for a moment about what your reaction would be if Microsoft made the Zune the only MP3 player compatible with Windows. There would be 4chan riots, denial of service attacks and Digg’s front page would be plastered with pundit editorials claiming Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer were Borg.

It is one thing to lock something out of software (like iTunes) and another to block it out from an entire OS.  DoubleTwist, that was mentioned above, has a Mac client.  MP3 players are not locked out at the OS level.

Apple’s iPhone is a revolutionary product that has devolved almost all of the progress made in cracking–wait for it–AT&T’s monoply in the ’70s and ’80s.

The current agreement is a long way from the AT&T monopoly of the ’70s and ’80s.  The old AT&T used to be your only choice for phone service.  This allowed them to charge whatever they wanted and you just had to deal with it.  I would bet if AT&T tripled the price of service for the iPhone, users would switch away to other carriers.  This would illustrate that they don’t have a monopoly.  There are other choices in the market.  AT&T being the  only choice for an iPhone is different then having a market monopoly.  It may be frustrating that you can’t get an iPhone on Verizon, but at least we still have choices.

Simple solution and opportunity: Not only let the iPhone work on any carrier, but put *two* SIM card slots on the iPhone and let users set which applications use which services. (Your phone could be Verizon and your browser Sprint!)

This idea was really out there.  Most people don’t want to deal with one carrier, let alone two.  Read Marco’s article as he voices everything I thought.

Jason’s last three points can be summed up in one statement; the app store is terribly broken and create an anticompetitive environment for both consumers and developers.  I 100% agree with Jason on this.  I have posted about the problems in the past and voiced that I feel it needs to be changed.  Apple is going down a slippery slope and it would be a shame to see such a beautiful thing turn into a wasteland that lacks innovation.

I feel that Jason’s point could have been stronger if he combined and focused on the last three parts.  The first two points degraded his credibility and ruined the tone for the rest of the piece.  Like me, Jason is a geek at heart.  I know his head is in the right place, I just wish his article focused more on the valid points.

TechCrunch also has a great piece covering Jason’s article.