Dear Apple: it’s time to steal an idea from Google for your iOS App Store

Apple says iTunes 12.7 has been “updated to focus on music, films, TV programmes, podcasts and audiobooks”. In other words, the iOS App Store is dead on desktop. The only remnants are iTunes Preview pages for apps, which can be viewed in a browser.

The lack of a desktop component for iOS apps means some things are now impossible. You cannot browse the iOS App Store on the desktop, download and manage local copies of apps (to, for example, later reinstall apps that are no longer available), redeem promo codes on a Mac, install apps to your devices from macOS, nor queue them for later if you’re tight for space.

Google Play’s approach at least manages to do some of these things. You can browse the entirety of Google Play from Safari, and buy/install apps, choosing which of your Android devices to send them to.

Google has always been more comfortable with the internet than Apple, and in this area Apple now falls short. If I’m reading about great iOS apps or games on my PC or Mac, I can no longer quickly grab them in iTunes, and later download them to my iOS devices. There’s not even a wish-list option. I now have to send myself a link, or switch to an iOS device. (Also, some apps are device-specific, and I still can’t buy an iPad app from an iPhone, which is absurd.)

Apple should steal an idea from Google. It should be possible to buy apps directly from iTunes Preview, and choose where to send them. Better: iTunes Preview should grow to become the entire iOS App Store online, giving greater visibility to apps, and freeing browsing and buying them from the confines of iOS.

The other downsides of iTunes losing the App Store are likely permanent losses. Apple doesn’t want you making local app archives. Apple doesn’t want you installing old apps that may have compatibility and security issues. Apple does, though, want your money – and having a web-based take on the App Store would further that goal.

September 18, 2017. Read more in: Apple, Opinions, Technology

No Comments

Relying on smartphones is the opposite of future-proofing

I’ve written several times about the impending appocalypse. If you’ve not heard, 32-bit apps are dead as of iOS 11. They simply won’t open. This will consign many great iOS apps and games to oblivion.

Fortunately, many games have been updated since the issue became widely known, including Osmos, Beat Sneak Bandit, Mos Speedrun, and the original Reckless Racing, but a recent TidBITS piece by Marc Zeedar flagged another important issue regarding swathes of apps ceasing to function:

Worst of all, some of my obsolete apps are linked to hardware. For instance, years ago I bought a toy car that’s controlled via an app on my iPhone. That app is on my obsolete list. When it goes, the car is useless.

For Stuff magazine, I recently reviewed smart robot Cozmo and Sphero’s R2-D2. Both are very good – I was particularly taken by the former – but both are also totally reliant on smartphones to function, to the point that they stop working the second you close their controller apps.

It’s curious to think that as technology evolves, and companies furiously try to interlink everything, we’re setting ourselves up to make so much technology obsolete. At some point in the future, these controller apps will simply stop working, after an OS update. Then Artoo and Cozmo will be little more than paperweights.

You could of course keep an old device specifically as a controller for a favourite, but it’s sad to think we’re zooming away from electronic toys a child might one day be able to share with their own children. And that’s all before we start thinking about smartphones and apps being vital for critical aspects of a home, such as security, lighting, heating, and dealing with appliances.

Still, I’m sure it’s all worth it to not have to get off of your arse to turn on a light.

September 6, 2017. Read more in: Opinions, Technology

No Comments

Burger King, ‘OK, Google’, and the effect of intrusive advertising

You’ve probably heard by now that Burger King in its infinite wisdom decided to run an advert that had someone leaning into the camera to say: “OK, Google, what is the Whopper burger?” Cue: every Google device within earshot obediently reading the Wikipedia article about one of the company’s burgers.

Google’s since put out a fix, which I assume had the code name ‘Die, Burger King, die’, and reports suggest the company’s working to have devices respond to owners rather than anyone.

Speaking to BuzzFeed, Burger King president José Cil argued it was a “cool way to connect directly with our guests”. I’d argue it was a clever way to get column inches, but the company seemingly makes the assumption everyone is a potential Burger King customer, and is happy to be in on the experiment.

More bafflingly, in the Guardian’s report, Charlie Crowe, president of a publishing and events company, appeared to back Burger King, although he started well when talking about the nature of the advert. “Any advertising or media idea which provokes us to think about the absurdities of modern day digital life is, in itself, a good thing,” he said — and that in itself is a good point, as is: “Perhaps what is so unnerving about this is that it makes us think about how digital technology is impacting our lives in ways we are only beginning to appreciate.”

But then he added: “Maybe this all is a little uncomfortable… so why shouldn’t this make us want to leave our homes and visit a Burger King with our friends?” Frankly, any company overstepping the mark into my living room and disrupting my world uninvited can piss right off. But perhaps this is it now: intrusive and aggressive advertising is here to stay. It’s not about winning you over, but bludgeoning you into submission, so you’ll buy something or visit an outlet, in the hope that the companies in question will eventually leave you alone.

April 13, 2017. Read more in: Technology

Comments Off on Burger King, ‘OK, Google’, and the effect of intrusive advertising

Are you Siri-ous?

Google FTW! Siri is awful! That’s the typical opinion throughout the tech sphere, and one Matt Bircher aims to nix in his video.

Bircher makes plenty of good points, although largely showcases all of these AIs have a long way to go. Mostly, I’ve discovered Siri’s shortcomings while trying to use the thing in the car.

Naturally, I’m not a massive idiot when it comes to driving. I reduce technology usage as much as possible, and avoid touching my iPhone’s display. But maps are pretty important things to have available, not least when you, say, take a wrong turn on the way to the airport and end up zooming towards Gatwick when you should be picking up your wife from Heathrow, thereby very rapidly needing to know the fastest route in the right direction.

Me: Hey, Siri! Get me directions to Heathrow Airport, Terminal 2!
Siri: Which Heathrow airport terminal? Tap the one you want.

Yeah, thanks, Siri. I’m driving. I’m not going to be tapping anything. And your list omits terminal two, which is even better. Apparently, you cannot comprehend that when I asked for directions to Terminal 2, I wanted directions to Terminal 2.

After two more frustrating attempts, I hit upon a cunning plan:

Me: Hey, Siri! Launch Google.
Google launches
Me: OK, Google, get me directions to Heathrow Airport, Terminal 2.

Done. Instantly. Which of course means Google is amazing and Siri isn’t. Apart from during another car journey where it appears the two had got drunk together.

Me: Hey, Siri! Open Google Maps.
Siri: OK, here’s the App Store.

Me: Hey, Siri! Send a message to my wife.
Siri: You have no new messages.

Me: OK, Google! When’s the next train from Gatwick to North Camp?
Google: spews out a load of web searches for The Train Line and carries on drinking gin with Siri
Me: wishes driverless cars would arrive a whole lot sooner

February 15, 2017. Read more in: Apple, Opinions, Technology

Comments Off on Are you Siri-ous?

More DRM madness as Sainsbury’s exits ebook market

Earlier this year, I wrote about Nook going splat, and libraries being transferred to Sainsbury’s. I said it highlighted how digital books are more akin to rental, and that DRM is pretty awful for anyone who actually wants to own copies of virtual media.

Brilliantly, Sainsbury’s is now quitting the market, and Rakuten Kobo is apparently going to enable customers “the opportunity to transfer their eBook libraries to Kobo’s eReading service”. The press release I received just now adds people will “be able to cherish the books they currently have for years to come”. I won’t hold my breath on that.

And in case you’re wondering, yes, this does mean customers being bounced around will have to use Kobo apps or hardware until such point that Rakuten Kobo also gives up and some other company grabs the library, like a frenzied mash-up of a librarian, venture capitalist and vulture.

September 20, 2016. Read more in: Opinions, Technology

Comments Off on More DRM madness as Sainsbury’s exits ebook market

« older posts