I remember buying one of the original iPod shuffles, thinking it might come in handy for walking about with, rather than ‘risking’ my expensive chunky iPod photo. In the end, the iPod photo sat unloved in a drawer (and, eventually, got wired into my amp), while the shuffle laughed heartily on its victory.

Far from being bothered by the perceived restrictions of the device (no screen, basic controls), I loved the shuffle’s durability, and due to an OCD-like iTunes set-up where everything’s rated, I could fill the tiny iPod with tracks of a certain length and quality, and then set off to town knowing that I had a selection of what I considered great music with me.

When the new shuffle came out—the one that’s a tiny clip—I bought one of those, too. The old shuffle was relegated somewhat (although it’s still dug out for long flights), because the new one’s sheer tininess made it a real winner. Again, no screen, but the competition’s tiny displays didn’t seduce me in the slightest.

Today, Apple went a stage further, with the latest version of the shuffle, and, yeah, there’s going to be a third one rattling around this house soon enough.

Amazingly, the device is even smaller that its predecessor, tinier than a door key. Because of this, the controls have shifted to the headphones (the one negative, since this means you’re stuffed if they break or you want to use non-Apple headphones), and VoiceOver has made its debut, making the lack of screen a non-issue. Now, the iPod shuffle, apparently conversant in 14 languages, can tell you what you’re listening to, and which playlist you’re playing.

Again, this highlights Apple’s desire to innovate, rather than just looking at the competition and doing something similar. It also shows that giving people what they want rather than what they think they want can pay dividends, in terms of features and industrial design. Most importantly, though, it appears that without Steve Jobs at the helm, things can continue, what with unknown devices still being in the pipeline. Take note, idiot reporters.

Having been using the internet for more than a decade, I can’t think of two more broken ratings systems than those used by eBay and Amazon.

eBay’s appears largely based around screwing the other party over. To make things ‘better’, eBay recently removed the ability for sellers to leave feedback. This resulted in buyers realising they could ‘blackmail’ sellers with strong feedback scores, threatening to leave ‘negatives’ unless partial refunds were given.

Amazon’s system is just as bad, but in a very different way. Since the site enables people who’ve not bought an item to leave feedback, the reviews are largely rendered pointless. A stinking stream of “I’ve not bought this, but…” dribbles around the edge of every page, made all the more putrid when the reviewed item isn’t even available for another six months.

With these things in mind, it should come as no surprise that Gordon Brown’s Labour, bastions of IT idiocy, are now suggesting services like GPs and police should be rated in a similar way (source BBC News). The article notes that Brown said it was wrong that consumer websites such as Amazon and eBay had “higher standards of transparency” than those for public services.

Excuse me, but isn’t this the dumbest idea possible in this area? Sure, get official bodies to figure out if services are up to scratch, and run independent inquiries when things go very wrong. But the last thing we need for councils, the police and childcade is a bunch of one-star reviews by crazy people, annoyed that a service they’ve never used doesn’t do something it’s not supposed to do.

Interesting, though, that Brown notes how the government has been “too slow to make use of the enormous democratising power of information,” and yet ignores true democracy by avoiding giving the people referendums on things that actually matter. (Iraq, anyone?)

He also rattles on about ushering in “a new world of accountability in which parents, patients and local communities shape the services they receive, ensuring all our public services respond not simply to the hand of government, but to the voice of local people.” Note, though, that Brown avoids placing the government and himself in this arena.

According to MacRumors, Apple has removed non-customer reviews from the App Store. When the store first arrived, anyone could review any application, which, far from being a democratising process, merely resulted in idiots ‘reviewing’ applications they’d not downloaded. For example, ProRemote, a remote for people in busy recording studios, got slammed for costing £60+, via a number of quintessential “I haven’t used this app, but…” reviews.

Although removing these braindead comments doesn’t make App Store reviews perfect (every time an app’s price drops, users who bought at a more expensive price flock to the App Store to deploy one-star reviews of doom, and many other ‘reviewers’ don’t seem to understand how a five-star rating system works, offering surreal glowing one-star reviews), it does make it less broken. I’m sure Apple will get slammed by some, arguing the new system is more of a ‘closed garden’ but, frankly, every online reviews system should be like this.

As someone who reviews items professionally, I often find consumer reviews troublesome, since few people have the experience to make worthwhile comparisons. With a DVD, videogame or CD, that’s perhaps not the case, but few people will have used enough monitors, web-design apps, washing machines, TVs or ovens to have a truly informed opinion about where their shiny new purchase fits in the scheme of things. But when you allow non-customers to review anything, the result is always a car crash. Amazon is the most obvious example, with reviews appearing long before items become available (those for upcoming consoles are particularly absurd—a flurry of five-star reviews from the ‘pro’ camp and one-star opinions from the ‘anti’).

So, Apple is to be applauded for its decision. And if the company can deal with keyword-spamming and its underperforming store search over the coming months, the App Store will finally ensure users and developers do a happy dance, rather than grudgingly trudging through the mire for hours, in search of gems.

Apple sinks to new levels of stupid in South Park App Store row

Ever since the App Store opened for submissions, Apple’s been—and this is perhaps the most charitable description—inconsistent. Although I disagree with the regular statements from Apple’s competition about walled gardens (and Ballmer recently arguing, without a hint of irony, that iPhone is stifling innovation, and if only everyone was using Windows Mobile, they’d have more choice), whoever at Apple is dictating policy regarding App Store submission needs a good swift kick in the nuts.

Apple hit the news when it denied Podcaster entry to the App Store last September. The bizarre argument was that it duplicated functionality of an existing Apple app, but not one on the iPhone—instead, Podcaster wasn’t allowed distribution because, in part, it duplicated functionality in the desktop version of iTunes.

Now, however, Apple has descended to new levels of stupid. In development since last autumn, the South Park app has now been rejected without ceremony. Apple’s reasoning? The content is “potentially offensive”.

In itself, this is understandable. But when you look at the iPhone ‘ecosystem’, the decision is nothing short of batsh*t crazy.

Reason 1: South Park episodes are available to buy in full in the iTunes Store, and they happily play on—you guessed it—an iPhone.

Reason 2: South Park may have plenty of somewhat offensive and puerile moments, but that is at least a veneer over a satirical and cunningly intelligent cartoon. That, however, can’t be said of the slew of boob-jiggle and fart apps that Apple’s happily allowed into the App Store of late. Way to be consistent, Apple!

Reason 3: I’m an adult. No, really. Lots of people who own iPhones are also adults. No, no, it’s actually true. To that extent, it’s a bit rich of Apple to take the ‘offensive’ line with a cartoon that’s shown on television—it’s not like Parker and Stone thought: “You know what? Let’s change South Park, just for iPhone! Its new name shall be Gimp Chainsaw Blood Gouge Sex Death Park!”.

So, Apple, with a slightly edgy but perfectly safe app, let people decide for themselves whether to buy it. After all, I suspect the vast majority of people buying a South Park app are actually going to be South Park fans, and they’ll only take offence if it’s rubbish.

The App Store is undoubtedly iPhone’s killer app, but if Apple keeps indiscriminately knifing apps for no real reason—and high-profile ones at that—it’s going to be iPhone’s killer. It’ll only be so long before rivals start to catch up, and although I’ve no doubt that the Microsoft App Store won’t be as good as Apple’s, it’ll be ‘good enough’ for many. If Apple’s still playing the stupid card when that happens, a whole bunch of people will be yelling “screw you guys,” ditching their iPhones and going elsewhere.

Banking, it seems, isn’t the only career where you can just make crazy sh*t up and get paid for it. Yet again, this week saw an analyst banging the ‘cheap iPhone’ drum. This time, RBC’s Mike Abramsky said we’d see a distinct $99 ‘entry level’ iPhone this summer (source: Silicon Alley Insider).

The things Abramsky claims could appear in the device are pretty funny, and somewhat akin to Apple (a company that, remember, gets off on selling high-quality, high-end products for suitably high price tags) shooting itself in the foot, then the kneecap and then the balls, for good measure. They include:

• A lower-resolution camera. This would require special effort from Apple, as anyone with an existing iPhone will know. The camera is already dreadful. About the only way it could get substantially worse is if Apple removed it entirely, and just made the Camera app snap black rectangles.
• No 3G or GPS, thereby knifing two of the most important aspects of the new iPhone.

To compensate, an updated iPhone would include a screen with 720 x 480 pixels (shoe-horned in, presumably, by someone pushing really, really hard) that would instantly annoy every single iPhone developer and knacker the App Store (given that developers would have to cater for multiple devices), and video.

So, where has this analyst heard the news from? Tim Cook? A recovering Steve Jobs? Nope. He’s just pulled it out of his butt, in the special way that analysts do. This kind of thing wouldn’t be so bad, but people actually listen to these guys. When they say “Apple will release an iMac for $5 that will give you a back massage on demand”, the industry laps it up, and then demolishes Apple when it doesn’t deliver. And these guys get paid lots of money for spouting whatever comes to mind.

Still, I’m sure us mere mortals can take solace in the fact that analysts will probably be first up against the wall when the revolution comes. Even before the bankers.