UPDATE: So someone from Touch Arcade found this post and said to me: “Really Craig? Your blog post is preceded with ‘I haven’t tried iDOS yet’ and you still go on to admonish Eli? Grain of salt.”

It’s a fair point, but my argument was more to do with the fact emulators for iOS never work as well as native games. Having since spent a couple of happy hours mucking about with iDOS, I certainly agree that it’s a fun curiosity, but the game-playing experience pales in comparison to games designed specifically for iOS, much as you’d expect.

Yesterday, an app called iDOS came to the App Store. Essentially a port of DOSBox with a couple of nicely IP-infringing Namco games welded to it, I predicted the emulator would be pulled off the store within two days. In fact, it only took a few hours before the Apple Police took it out back and shot it.

I’ve not tried iDOS yet (the developer was kind enough to send me a promo during the few hours the app was live), but I like me some retro-gaming, and it’s a nice curiosity. I have vague ideas about maybe getting a few old DOS games I’ve got knocking around working, but ultimately I probably won’t have enough time.

This is a good thing. That’s because it’s part of the slippery slope that I experienced with DS-based emulation. On Nintendo’s system, the lack of decent new games meant I very often ended up playing ZX Spectrum games via an emulator. On iOS, I pretty much download a new game every day, which is far more interesting than repeatedly playing stuff I’ve already played; also, I’m potentially supporting more developers; additionally, this means I’m getting optimal experiences, since the games are made for the system.

Touch Arcade doesn’t get this. In an article called The Importance of iDOS, Eli Hodapp says this:

What if developers leveraged the power of iDOS, or, more accurately, the open source nature of both Dospad and Dosbox to release individually tailored versions of iDOS with a specific game embedded and the emulator extensively tweaked to run that game well?

I can’t think of anything worse for iOS gaming. Emulators already exist on the system. Sega’s Mega Drive one is dire. Manomio’s C64 one is a good effort, but those old 8-bit games just don’t work without digital controllers. About the only emulator I can deal with is Frotz, and that’s because it’s a text adventure player (specifically, it runs Z-Machine files), and so it only needs a decent keyboard, which the iPad happily has.

I’m fine with retro games on iOS, but I sincerely hope if iDOS has inspired people, it’s inspired them to remake old games, or at least adapt them to iOS. I’d love to see Cannon Fodder for iOS. I’d be perfectly happy with the DOS version, but only if it had controls reworked specifically for iOS devices. What I don’t want is to be swiping my iPad screen like a crazy person, trying to move a cursor, thereby providing another layer of control abstraction that’s totally unnecessary in iOS gaming.

A regular criticism of Apple is that the company tends to push aesthetics over functionality. I’ve never entirely agreed with this thinking, believing that—for the most part—Apple advocates usability over everything else, and aesthetics form a major part of how usable something is.

However, two recent reports of upcoming Apple products concern me, since it seems Apple is in some cases sacrificing usability for platform consistency.

The first case is in the iPad, where Steve Jobs has reportedly confirmed via email (9To5Mac) that the iPad screen-rotation lock will become a mute button as of iOS 4.2. This matches the functionality on the iPhone and iPod touch, which is presumably why Apple has made the change. However, it doesn’t seem to take into account how people use the various devices; a rotation lock is far more important on the iPad, since the accelerometer is so sensitive. The iPad is also less likely to be used in scenarios where a mute button will be required, unlike the iPhone and iPod touch.

What grates for me in this scenario is that when asked “Are you planning to make that a changeable option?”, Jobs responded “Nope”. In other words, Apple is changing the functionality of a major hardware component of its device, without providing users with a means to revert, despite the button’s functionality being controlled by software. That there won’t be an option buried in the Settings app suggests Apple cares more for platform consistency than anything else. (Note: I’m aware iOS 4.1+ provides a software-based orientation lock by swiping the apps tray, but this is sub-optimal. Not only is this control awkward to access—and will be more so on the larger iPad—but many users won’t even know it exists.)

MacRumors today reports on some equally concerning aspects of Lion (the next version of Mac OS X). According to a reader, the scrollbars are as per iOS (appearing only when needed and fading when they aren’t). This is idiotic from a user-experience standpoint. One of the biggest issues with iOS is that while it’s mostly intuitive, there’s a lot of ‘mystery meat’ navigation. Users have to ‘discover’ things far too often, since navigation and UI components are regularly hidden. Visible scrollbars provide an indication of a document’s size and your location within it; only showing scrollbars temporarily does not enhance usability—it degrades it; it’s also alien to a desktop operating system.

Both these things point to Apple wanting to merge concepts in iOS and Mac OS X at all costs. Some cross-pollination is undoubtedly a good idea—Mac OS X having system-wise auto-save/app-resumption will be a major productivity boost if implemented properly; but Apple must also remember that what works on one system won’t necessarily work on the other—and it should also realise that some things really don’t work from a usability standpoint on iOS as it is, and so welding such concepts to Mac OS X isn’t a great idea.

Steve Jobs announced yesterday that a Mac equivalent to the iOS App Store is coming soon. Naturally, the tech community has rattled off its usual arguments about ‘control’ and ‘openness’ and ‘Steve is a ninja and therefore cannot be trusted’.

Interestingly, though, most developers are positive about this development. Loren Brichter of Atebits/Twitter perhaps sums up best why the Mac App Store is a good thing over on Cult of Mac:

Find developer website
Click download link
Unarchive
Drag to Applications folder
Launch app
Find registration button
Go to developers website
Click buy
Enter credit card information
Click buy
Wait for email
Open license email
Copy license
Paste license

vs.

Click “Buy”

Prior to Apple’s event yesterday, rumours abounded about iOS being directly integrated into Mac OS X, perhaps replacing Dashboard, but this thinking wrongly dismisses iOS apps as being inferior to their desktop cousins.

Instead, Jobs says Apple has simply learned from and been inspired by its mobile devices; it’s clear that cross-pollination of ideas is the direction the company is heading in rather than integrating iOS directly into Mac OS X.

Read more about my thoughts on Mac OS X 10.7 (‘Lion’) over at TechRadar.

Lovely quote from Fraser Speirs, responding to people sceptical about his school’s ‘iPad for every pupil’ approach:

What the iPad has allowed us to do is to bring digital resources up to the same level of availabiliy as paper resources in our teaching. It’s unthinkable that pupils would only have one or two hours of access to books each week, yet that was the position with digital resources before we deployed the iPad.

Sadly, I’m increasingly thinking that whatever happens on a more widespread basis in the UK, it’ll likely have more to do with the likes of the RM Slate than the iPad, despite the RM device being pricier than the iPad, having a battery life of “over three hours” (compared to the iPad’s all-day charge—essential for school and work use) and lacking the app ecosystem that’s been a major component of the success of the project at Speirs’s school.