Articulate argument from Tim Anderson on why 24-bit will not fix computer audio and why 16-bit is fine:

[What] are the limitations of 16/44 audio? We can be precise about this. Nyquist’s Theorem says that the 44,100 Hz sampling rate is enough to perfectly recapture a band-limited audio signal where the highest frequency is 22,500 Hz. Human hearing may extends [sic] to 20,000 Hz in ideal conditions, but few can hear much above 18,000 Hz and this diminishes with age.

In fact, despite the claims of audiophiles, most people cannot tell the difference between studio-quality output and an MP3 file, especially given that output is usually sub-optimal (car stereos, crappy headphones, TV speakers, and so on). And given that music is distorted beyond belief in all commercial recordings these days (to make everything sound ‘loud’, audio is compressed and peaks are clipped, wrecking dynamic range), upping the audio from 16- to 24-bits won’t make the slightest bit of difference in the vast majority of cases, even if you have high-end kit.

To my mind, as long as sources are offering ‘high enough’ quality lossy files (256–320 kbps AAC or MP3), that’s enough. Any move to 24-bit will just be corporate PR wankery—a pissing match that aims to snare users who think higher numbers are better. And I bet you’d get charged more for the privilege.

Gary Marshall on TechRadar:

Make no mistake, the iPad 2 we see tomorrow will be a disappointment. But it won’t be a disappointment because it’s a bad device, or because it doesn’t take the iPad forward.

It will be a disappointment because it isn’t the entirely imaginary device the internet has been happily inventing for the last few months.

Apple watchers have been playing a game of “my dad’s bigger than your dad”, with iPads instead of dads. “My iPad 2 will have a retina display!” “Well, my iPad 2 will have an eight-core processor!” “That’s nothing! my iPad 2 will be made of carbon fibre and angel skin, and it will have an attachment that gets stones out of horses’ hooves!”

Since the Sunday Times claimed Jonathan Ive is about to quit Apple, the tech press has gone into OMG APPLE DOOMED mode again, and the Guardian’s Apple’s worst nightmare: Is Jonathan Ive to leave? headline sums things up pretty well.

To answer that particular question: no. Ive is a good designer who’s worked on some iconic products, but he’s not irreplaceable. There are other great, visionary designers in the world. The Guardian article also echoes a commonplace sentiment:

Surely Apple’s board, though they must be desperate to retain Ive, would find it in their interest to allow flexible working in this instance?

Suggestions that Ive should get ‘flexible working conditions’—when the report suggests he’s going to move back to the UK—are ludicrous. Industrial design for an industry giant isn’t something you can work remotely on. Ive can’t just check in now and again via Skype, fling over some ideas via email and pop over to Cupertino every month or so. A designer of his seniority needs to be there, available to see how things are progressing, leading teams, utterly in the mix.

The article also notes one of the most bonkers rumoured points of contention:

There was no hint in Apple’s recent annual meeting that Ive’s position was in doubt in any way, but also no suggestion that it might be Ive rather than current acting chief executive Tim Cook who might replace Jobs permanently.

Gosh, I wonder if that’s because Ive doesn’t have any experience at running an Apple-sized business, unlike, say, Tim Cook, who’s done the job ably already, and continues to do so?

Personally, I hope the Sunday Times is talking bollocks (and, frankly, it wouldn’t be the first time), because Apple with Ive is likely better than Apple without Ive. But if Ive did decide to leave, it wouldn’t be the end of Apple, and nor would it be a case of Apple somehow being unfair and inflexible regarding an employee’s demands.

Charlie Brooker in The Guardian:

Here’s a familiar, mundane scenario: you’ve got an iPhone with loads of music on it. And you’ve got a laptop with a new album on it. You want to put the new album on your phone. But you can’t hook them up and simply drag-and-drop the files like you could with, ooh, almost any other device. Instead, Apple insists you go through iTunes.

This is a pretty common argument against iTunes, but one I’ve never fully understood. Yes, iTunes is sluggish and a pain in the arse sometimes, and, yes, Apple could do more to detach its iThings from the desktop using some kind of wireless sync (rumoured in an upcoming iOS update), but drag and drop? Really?

The thing is, music management is one of the few things iTunes remains really good at. When you rip a CD, it helpfully organises everything and shoves the digital files in a logical location (something you can stop it doing, if you’re, for some reason, turned on by the prospect of dragging folders around your OS’s file system). If you’ve a large collection, it’s easy to search, and you can rapidly create smart playlists, based on complex criteria (or, if you want more control and have loads of time to waste, you can revert to drag and drop, to standard playlists). These days, I use a combination of playlists to determine which music ends up on my devices, because it’s quicker and more efficient to do so when there’s 90 GB of music lurking on my Mac.

Without iTunes, I’d rarely—if ever—bother to update the music on my devices, because it’d be too much hassle. And without playlists that block recently played tracks, I’d likely end up playing the same old stuff all the time, rather than continually rediscovering old favourites.

So, yeah, iTunes is mostly a bit crap, and it could make things a whole lot easier in many ways, but it’s still a great means of managing your music and the music you shove on to your iThings.

VP of worldwide publishing Gonzague de Vallois on Pocket Gamer, commenting on EA’s pre-Christmas 59p/99-cent videogame price-point slash:

We weren’t that happy with the Christmas promotion because it was backed by Apple and they highlighted it on their store worldwide

One of their roles is to highlight premium content and to help publishers make money out of the platform. It’s a long-term market, and we have to be careful that we don’t get people used to the 59p price range.

Uh huh. I guess that’s why Gameloft has now slashed the price of 30 of its games to 59p/99 cents.

I’m in two minds about low pricing for games on the App Store. There’s no question that big brands can make more money with permanently low pricing, and it’s clear some games are well-suited to that lowest tier (such as Pac-Man, which makes far more sense at a buck than five). However, EA and Gameloft are both rapidly devaluing their brands on the platform through regular bottom-tier sales. I already know plenty of people who hold off buying anything by either company, because they figure that sooner or later it’ll cost just 59p/99 cents. It’s like the budget-game industry from the 1980s all over again—albeit at a third (or less) of the price.