There are plenty of rumours flying around about an Apple television. My hope is that Apple won’t enter the TV space directly—I think doing so is unnecessary and risky, and I can’t see much value that Apple could bring. Instead, I’d like to see the existing Apple TV move from being a hobby to a unit every iOS device owner must own, simply because it’s so fab.

Right now, it’s not there, but it has potential. On its own, it’s a reasonable piece of kit for movie rentals. If your Apple TV’s wired into an amp, it’s a great means of getting music from your iOS devices to your home music system. Using AirPlay, it’s also possible to stream a bunch of content, including files incompatible with iTunes, should you invest in AirVideo or streamtome. (And by ‘invest’, I mean ‘spend a couple of bucks’—it’s not like apps are expensive.) Should Apple power-up the Apple TV and reduce lag, it’s also going to become a great gaming device.

The main sticking point for me with the Apple TV remains television programming. In the UK, TV series are far too expensive (anything up to double what you’d pay for a DVD box-set) and many popular series are absent. The US gets things better, merely being lumbered with overpriced content. One of the very few Apple rumours I’m happy to believe is that TV companies are reluctant to cave to Apple’s demands, in making their shows cheaper or more readily available, because, well, um… THE MUSIC INDUSTRY!

Apple totally destroyed the music industry, didn’t it? Steve Jobs totally wrecked things for those guys, and made Apple far too powerful in that space. Particularly terrible things Apple has done include:

• encouraging more people to buy digital music, rather than just downloading it from the naughtyweb;
• convincing labels to drop DRM, leading to people being able to do what they want with digital music purchases, thereby leading to more sales;
• effectively monetising pirated music, through iTunes Match.

You can see why TV companies won’t cede any measure of ‘control’ to Apple. They might encourage more people to buy digital content, rather than downloading for free! Maybe Apple could somehow figure out how to monetise downloaded content with the video equivalent of iTunes Match, thereby making studios more money! And, um… …  …

No, it turns out I don’t get it either. Maybe those guys just really like shiny discs?

(Note: I know the real sticking point that gets TV companies’ knickers in a twist is Apple’s cut, but NEWSFLASH: a large chunk of something is a bigger figure than all of nothing.)

Taylor Hatmaker for Tecca, reporting on the 6 biggest technology flops of 2011 (an article with the URL ‘worst-technology-of-2011’):

3. iPhone 4S

Man, that iPhone 4S was a total disaster, wasn’t it? I mean, apart from the record sales and the new technology inside it, obviously.

While it’s no flop when it comes to sales figures, the iPhone 4S remains one of 2011’s biggest consumer letdowns.

So, hang on: the iPhone 4S is not a sales flop, just a consumer letdown? I guess that explains the huge number of consumers that bought one, and why it’s been included it in an article entitled ‘A Year In Fail: The 6 biggest technology flops of 2011’ and not ‘The 6 biggest consumer letdowns for people who were expecting digital unicorns’.

Earlier this year, Apple’s iPad 2 upped its prececessor’s [sic] appeal considerably, slimming the original slate down while speeding it up — but it’s tough to not be disappointed by the iconic company’s most recent handset.

*no new form-factor sadface*

Apple’s newest iteration of the iPhone is certainly nothing to sneeze at — it’s still one of the fastest, best-looking smartphones on the block — but it’s no iPhone 5.

*NO NEW FORM-FACTOR SADFACE*

After spending the better part of the year salivating over a reinvented iPhone with a larger screen, a thinner profile, and other untold Apple-flavored wonders,

All of which were ‘announced’ by rumours coming from unnamed and unreliable ‘sources’, natch, and not Apple itself…

Apple aficionados were presented with the iPhone 4S — a nominal upgrade over the previous model that touted the now much-parodied Siri app as its main selling point.

That is, if we ignore the camera upgrade, faster CPU, and redesigned antenna. But these things count for nothing if the body is the same, clearly.

While Siri is a capable (if at times perhaps too capable) virtual companion, 2011 is still an off-year when it comes to the world’s must-have gadget. Patience is a virtue, and all eyes are on 2012’s iPhone to up the ante.

Because in becoming the fastest-selling Apple iPhone ever, the iPhone 4S didn’t up the ante at all. Still, maybe next year everyone will be happy. Oh no, hang on a sec, next year will be exactly the same, with people predicting summer iPhone-shaped unicorns and getting all disappointed when Tim Cook and chums ‘only’ present a new iPhone, the fools!

Hipstamatic is a photography app that’s captured the imagination of myriad iPhone owners. The app enables you to switch lenses and camera types, aping film cameras and providing a little soul to otherwise sterile digital snaps. Synthetic Corp, the company behind the app, cunningly took advantage of the sheer number of people keen to create retro photos, providing various packs of lenses and effects, and also offering a print service. It’s an effective combination and a solid, entertaining app; the default set-up that you get when paying for the app is enough for some, but the add-ons are reasonably priced for those who want a little more variety.

Bizarrely, the company has now gone full-on freemium with a new product, Hipstamatic Disposable, with a pricing model that makes gold-farming games almost look reasonable, and also manages to more literally take photography back to the dark ages. This time, the app is free, and you pay for digital film. I am not making this up. Hipstamatic Disposable takes the major benefit of the digital age—not having to worry about the number of snaps you have left—and stamps all over it, in the desire to make money.

I hate the freemium trend. We’re way past value-add now and fully into the realm of gouging. We’ve seen golf games where you effectively pay for a few extra strokes, and now here’s a camera app where you pay for the film. I sincerely hope Hipstamatic Disposable falls on its stupid face and breaks its stupid digital lens, before some dolt starts working on a word processor where you have to buy sheets of paper and typewriter ribbons, or a driving game where you have to fuel up your car (with petrol prices defined by actual prices, to enhance the realism), or an art app where you buy little tubes of expensive acrylic paint that annoyingly dry out if you forget to put the little digital caps on to the little digital tubes before shutting down the app.

Of late, there’s been a rush in the tech industry to rip off Apple. Instead of companies innovating, they’re freaked out at the possibility of being left behind and have therefore decided on a ‘clone and maybe catch up’ mentality. The result: myriad non-Apple iPads, iPhones and MacBook Airs. Oddly, though, one thing many of these companies don’t do is ape Apple’s simple naming conventions. Take, for example, svelte notebooks, now referred to as ‘ultrabooks’. If you want to buy Apple, you get a MacBook Air. Simple. Go Windows, and you’re just as likely to get a PC brand, a possible sub-brand, and then a seemingly random string of numbers and letters, such as the Lenovo IdeaPad U300s, the Asus Zenbook UX31, or the Samsung 900X3A.

Perhaps I’ve been using Apple kit too long and my brain has rotted away, but these names don’t strike me as being memorable. They are, of course, a symptom of too much choice. Instead of streamlining output, companies tend to think consumers want an absurdly wide range of choice (spoiler: they don’t—they only think they do), and so provide dozens of alternatives. You end up with something akin to the car industry, where someone will be able to remember the company that makes what they want, and possibly the brand, but that’s it.

There’s evidence that some companies are slowly coming to understand the naming problem, if not the choice one. Samsung’s Galaxy products have reasonably distinct names, even if it’s not obvious which is superior. Does Europa ‘beat’ Apollo or Portal? Apple’s naming conventions may not be perfect, but an iPad 2 is clearly better than an iPad 1, and an iPhone 4S betters a 4, which betters a 3GS (the last of those being Apple’s naming nadir in the iPhone line). But then you nip to the Bada OS page and discover the Wave, Wave525, Wave 533, Wave II, Wave 723, and the Wave 578!

Why does Samsung need six Bada OS devices and 17 Android ones? Why does it feel the need to give them such baffling and unhelpful names? In simplifying the line-up and the names, it would have a better shot at making its devices memorable and less throwaway (although one might argue that’s precisely what Samsung’s going for—throwaway—to keep hardware sales ticking over regularly). It’d also be one aspect of Apple I’d be quite happy to see it—and others—replicate, simply because it makes life easier for consumers.

I write about stuff I know. I’ve been creating websites since the mid-1990s and although web design only accounts for a small proportion of my work these days, I understand the industry, and so I write about it. The same’s more or less true for other areas of design and tech. Sometimes, I find myself outside of my comfort zone, and when that happens, I research like crazy. There’s a good reason for this: I don’t want to look like a dick and, by extension, make the publication I’m writing for look like a dick, thereby making the editor look like a dick, who’ll then hunt me down and kill me with sticks (or, more likely, give me no more work).

A pity a writer for The Street didn’t today have the same kind of mentality and instead presumably had a thought process that roughly went:

• I have a story to write about Apple and flash!
• *googles “Apple and flash”*
• *writes story about Apple and flash, and Flash, confusing flash and Flash in a thoroughly embarrassing way*

A choice quote from the now re-edited article (my emphasis), as (at the time of writing) still live on DAF:

Apple is in talks to buy a flash storage company for mobile products called Anobit Technologies for $400 million to $500 million, Israeli newspaper Calcalist reports. If a deal were to materialize, it would be Apple’s biggest merger since bringing legendary founder Steve Jobs back to the company with NeXT in 1996. For a company that’s relied on inventing and growing internal products to win consumer loyalty, a flash-focused deal could potentially solve an oft cited bother of Apple’s popular iPhone and iPad products – their inability to handle Adobe’s Flash program that allows Web users to view applications, pictures and video.

The original article has since been updated, twice(!), to

reflect difference between flash memory hardware and flash software [sic]

Man, what’s going to happen when the guys and gals at The Street find that Jeff Beck’s Flash is available on iTunes, or that Queen’s Flash is also available? JOURNOPOCALYPSE!

Hat-tippage: @DSHowell and @jayenkai.