On iOS devices, Do Not Disturb is a handy feature that enables you to stop your device getting all noisy during a user-defined schedule, for example stopping gleeful text messages from O2 at three in the morning, saying your mobile balance has just been topped up. On January 1, this feature ‘helpfully’ didn’t work, enabling all iOS users to have a much-needed lie-in after having probably had far too much to drink the night before. According to Apple, the feature won’t start working again until January 7, requiring it to be manually turned on or off—not much cop for regularly silencing a device overnight.

In his latest piece for Macgasm, Harry Marks lays into the tech press for its “imaginary outrage” about what’s been dubbed Do-Not-Disturb-Gate, because, as we know, if something goes wrong with iOS, there’s literally nothing better for a tech hack than whacking ‘gate’ on the end of the specific thing that’s gone wrong.

Marks says:

It’s the talk of the town all over the blogosphere… mainly because there’s nothing else to talk about. A bug in iOS 6 appeared at the start of the new year that affects users of the system’s Do Not Disturb feature. Normally, Do Not Disturb automatically deactivates at a set time each day, but this bug prevents that from happening, which means the user must painstakingly go into Settings, then flick the Do Not Disturb switch to the “Off” position. How dreadful.

I agree entirely with Marks’s subsequent rantage that the press has, as usual, gone nuts about this issue, in typically overblown fashion. He’s also right that the press seems to think Apple exists in a perpetual state of scandal. To keep hits flooding in, Apple always has to be doing the tech equivalent of shoving babies on to spikes or pissing in someone’s soup. However, I don’t agree with wholeheartedly dismissing outrage from users, because this is a key problem with iOS and, crucially, this isn’t the first time Apple’s had problems with time-related features.

As people move towards being more reliant on their smartphones, basic and important functionality such as alarms and silence scheduling must work properly. Previously, Apple alarms have failed during switches to daylight savings time and as the calendar year has changed. That Do Not Disturb suddenly stopped working on New Year’s Day should have been a shock, but instead all I could think was “not again”.

Anyone arguing “this would never have happened if Steve Jobs, etc.” is of course deluded. Plenty went wrong with OS X, iOS and other aspects of Apple when he was alive. However, I have since the iPhone’s arrival felt a gradual but very real slide in Apple’s QA process. Bugs have become more frequent, and software has been less considered. Updates are rarer—and from a company that was never terribly interested in regular software patches in the first place. But there’s a big difference between something new going wrong (hello, Game Center for Mac) and a problem Apple has time and time again. Do Not Disturb failing to work is something that shouldn’t have happened, because someone should have remembered Apple’s previous failings with time-related features and rigorously tested it. That the feature did fail points to either a lack of engineers/testers at Apple, or a lack of giving a shit, and neither of those things is really acceptable.

Peter Bright writes for Ars Technica: In bringing Office to iOS, Microsoft is playing a dangerous game. He mostly makes the argument against Microsoft releasing Office for mobile platforms other than Windows RT, for reasons that sort of make sense, but that are just as risky for Microsoft in its current position. That position, of course, is that it’s merrily spent the past few years teaching people they don’t really need Microsoft Office.

There are exceptions. Some people rely on very specific functionality within the likes of Excel and Word, and they simply cannot transition to other software. But many others are happy using Google’s online suite and free Office alternatives; and on iOS, Apple worked up touch-optimised apps for word processing, presentations and spreadsheets, while Microsoft did precisely nothing (publicly, at least) for the rapidly growing platform that was eating into PC market-share. Even in the more traditional space of the desktop, Office remains notably absent from the Mac App Store.

On Office for iOS, Bright thinks Microsoft

stands a good chance of cementing the role of the iPad as a business tool, eroding the advantages of Windows Phone 8 and undermining the entire value proposition of Windows RT.

This is true to some extent, but there’s also a good chance that horse has bolted anyway. It’s hugely optimistic to hope all those businesses that already have iPads deployed will ditch them because of Office on Windows RT. Those that haven’t yet might stick with Microsoft, but they’re also—unless they’re absolutely wedded to Office—just as likely to go with the iPad, which is the tried-and-tested technology in this space, with a massive underlying ecosystem of apps and supporting technology.

It will also hole Microsoft’s argument that the iPad is “just” for content consumption below the waterline. The upside of Office on iOS? That’s harder to fathom.

I don’t think it is. Office for iOS, if it was good and affordable, becomes a no-brainer purchase for occasional users, and also a means to keep people in Microsoft’s camp who’d otherwise leave it entirely. It keeps Microsoft’s cross-platform game in play (remember Office in itself is a huge revenue generator) rather than having the company retreat only to its own platform. By staying away from iOS—and also Android—Microsoft risks continuing to teach people they don’t need its software and, by extension, Microsoft as a whole.

Bright also argues that in creating an app for iOS or Android, it will have to make the assumption of touch first (no guaranteed physical keyboard), which it hasn’t done on Windows RT, where it

offers (almost) full fidelity reproduction and editing of Office documents

achieved by Microsoft being

forced to make enormous compromises: the Office apps in Windows RT offer only minimal concessions to touch-based usability.

I don’t think Microsoft was really forced in this direction. It’s a lack of ambition and I suspect what the company itself considered a minimisation of risk. Given enough time, money, vision and talent, Microsoft could have created a fully touch-based Office for a new generation of devices. Clearly, the company lacked one or more of those things.

Google Maps is out for iPhone and iPod touch. This has, apparently, surprised a bunch of people, including those in the tech press. I’m not sure why. Yes, ‘sources’ had said Google Maps might struggle for approval, but then ‘sources’ say a whole bunch of crap. In fact, ‘sources’ often don’t exist, and are instead ‘journo making shit up and pretending otherwise’.

Of course, Eric Schmidt also fanned the flames a little in an interview, stating of Apple:

They haven’t approved all of our apps in the past.

But that lacked any context whatsoever, not mentioning why some Google apps didn’t make the cut. (Some were due to Google not adhering to Apple rules, and some were due to Apple rules being stupid, some of which have since been relaxed.) Instead, it would have made more sense for people to have looked at Tim Cook’s apology on Apple Maps, where he said:

While we’re improving Maps, you can try alternatives by downloading map apps from the App Store like Bing, MapQuest and Waze, or use Google or Nokia maps by going to their websites and creating an icon on your home screen to their web app.

That didn’t sound like a company about to reject a Google Maps app, and YouTube’s arrival on the App Store should have further removed people’s doubts, in terms of Apple not spiking apps built by its biggest rival. But then ‘Google Maps will show up on iOS when it’s ready’ isn’t as link-baity as ‘EVIL APPLE MIGHT NOT APPROVE GOOGLE MAPS BECAUSE TIM COOK HATES YOUR FACE AND WANTS YOU TO DIE IN THE DESERT’.

As for the app itself, I’ve been playing around with it today, and it’s quite nice. It’s fast and efficient, has far superior UK road colouring to Apple’s solution, and it actually knows where the most important Luton is. That said, some of the UI decisions are baffling, with Street View being weirdly ‘hidden’. (You must tap-hold a location to load it, then pull that up from the bottom of the screen. It’s a lot like discoverability in many touch apps for Windows 8—i.e. almost entirely missing.)

Oh, Reuters, with this rubbish, you are spoiling us! Chris Taylor’s Your Money: The “Apple Tax” – America’s costly obsession once again showcases how many writers shouldn’t be let near an Apple article unless wired up to a BLAZING KLAXON that near deafens them when they write something stupid.

For example:

With the “fiscal cliff” looming, taxpayers are wringing their hands about all sorts of things. Income taxes might rise, dividends might get walloped, lifetime gift-tax exemptions might get slashed. But when it comes to immediate impact on their wallets, maybe they should be thinking about something else entirely: The Apple tax.

BLAZING KLAXON!

You see how this could work? It would be great. At that point, Taylor would be rolling around on the floor, suitably chastised, and the article would be mercifully short. People would mention how strange it was that Reuters had put out such a succinct article, but perhaps they’d consider it an amusing joke of some sort—an ironic nod to the many articles online that don’t know what they’re talking about and so bang on about inaccuracies when it comes to Apple.

Unfortunately, this article subsequently becomes one that doesn’t know what it’s talking about and so bangs on about inaccuracies when it comes to Apple.

Americans are shelling out big bucks annually to outfit the entire household with Apple products. And they are spending hundreds—if not thousands of dollars—more each year for the unexpected Apple “taxes”—add-ons that lock them into the Apple system: iTunes downloads for music, movies and games, along with subscriptions and accessories.

BLAZING KLAXON!

In what way are these things taxes? Last I knew, Apple didn’t demand you pay for anything extra. Music can be grabbed from anywhere. Movies can be digitised from your collection and loaded into various apps, and many such apps and games are free.

Then there are the replacement costs for lost or broken equipment.

BLAZING KLAXON!

How is this an Apple thing? Does Samsung give you free stuff if your kit breaks? For that matter, does the company that made your TV, your fridge or your car? If you lose your bike, would you get another for free from the shop you bought it from? Of course bloody not.

 For a family with multiple children, each with their own technological needs, the total annual bill can get downright ugly—like going over a familial “fiscal cliff.”

BLAZING KLAXON!

Inappropriate analogy with massive economic problems that aren’t actually remotely similar to buying Apple kit at all!

The article then abruptly shifts to a human interest angle. Sam Martorana is a human-resources specialist for the airline WestJet, and he likes Apple products! He gets all upset when asked to tot up what his family has spent on Apple goods, thereby showcasing how terribly expensive it all is! Naturally, there’s no context. We don’t know if his family can easily afford such goods, nor what they spend on anything else, nor the benefits these products bring to the family’s life. Perhaps, for example, the kids happily play free or cheap iOS games, versus the family having to splash out 40 bucks on cartridges for other consoles. Perhaps the family uses the devices for education or as replacements for other goods that might have cost money. We just don’t know.

Taylor notes that the technology figure has been rising. He states the average household in the US now spends $444 per year on Apple products, up from $295 in 2010, and $150 in 2007, ignoring inflation, market changes, and so on. Still, luckily, he doesn’t then go nuts and embrace the rumour mill, in order to make the upcoming Apple spending figure (and thereby the trend) look even worse. Oh, my mistake—he does precisely that.

And we might only be seeing the beginning. If Apple rolls out its own HDTV, as expected, Huberty sees annual Apple spending by households doubling, to $888 by 2015.

BLAZING KLAXON!

That one was for including an Apple TV rumour.

And then it gets even worse:

The analogy of an Apple tax might sound facetious, but think about it. Median U.S. household income was $50,054 in 2011, according to the Census Bureau. That means a sizable chunk of that is getting diverted to Apple headquarters in Cupertino.

BLAZING KLAXON!

Remember, this is not something that consumers are being forced to pay. They are dipping willingly into their own pockets, because they’re essentially slaves to the devices.

BLAZING KLAXON!

People buy things because they need them and/or because they like them and/or because they think the items will benefit their lives in some way. That Apple is selling far more kit these days appears to be a combination of factors, but to argue people are slaves to their devices or that there’s some kind of ‘tax’ in play is idiotic. (Frankly, I’m surprised the Reuters pieces managed to steer clear of the ‘cult’ or ‘religion’ themes most end up going on about when it comes to Apple.)

What’s true is that technology is clearly becoming far more prevalent, and that’s in part down to Apple. Families are spending more on certain goods, and this is a trend that’s worthy of investigation. But for such things, we need context. We need more than just yet another link-baity hook, trying to blame Apple for something, rolling out some pointless quotes, using charged phrases like “I’m definitely an addict”. That kind of thing helps no-one and simply plays into shoring up certain stereotypes that were tiresome a decade ago, let alone today.

Expected behaviour is an important aspect of software design. iTunes has often been criticised for having a sync system that’s opaque and too readily insistent on deleting data. Apple’s dialog boxes rarely help, providing warnings that are indecipherable, even to people who’ve written about the company for years.

One of the biggest criticisms about iOS has been the manner in which apps are removed from a device during a sync if they’re no longer in iTunes, which of course takes app data with it. “Boom,” as Steve Jobs would have once said. However, this action through to iTunes 10 did at least provide the means to ‘rescue’ such apps, with the dialog box pictured below. The text within notes that purchased items are on a device, but not present in the iTunes Library. You get two options: Transfer copies the items back to iTunes; Don’t Transfer deletes them from the device.

Curiously, iTunes 11 leaves the dialog box in place but also does not—with my hardware—perform the Don’t Transfer action. Space is seemingly made on the device, ready for deleting various apps, but the deletion then does not occur. I’ve no idea if this is a bug or intentional. In a sense, having iTunes now work like this could be a good thing—less chance of accidentally removing an app through having deleted it in iTunes. The dialog box, though, suggests it’s another bug—one of many I’ve found in iTunes 11 now I’ve been using it for a while. From a personal standpoint, I’d quite like Don’t Transfer working again, because I used it for app management—it’s much faster to remove a few dozen apps from a device by deleting them from iTunes and doing a sync than by zapping them one at a time on the iOS device itself.

Update: As of iTunes 11.0.1, I’m finding that this dialog box no longer appears. It looks like the bug here was therefore the dialog box and not the syncing, and the app-removal feature has itself been removed. As per the article, I’m in two minds about this: for me, this will make app management harder, but for the general punter, it doesn’t really make sense to remove an app from a device if it’s not in the iTunes library on their PC or Mac. Also, it looks like the system has some intelligence—when I was playing around with it earlier today, it transfers to the computer updated apps that are in the library but not apps that aren’t.