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!”

Nigel Whitfield on eBooks that ‘wear out’:

[New] Harper Collins eBooks sold to libraries will have a licence (enforced by the Digital Rights system embedded in the files) that allows a book to be loaned only twenty-six times, before it expires.

After that, if the library wants to carry on lending the book, it will have to buy a new copy.

I think—especially in harsh economic times—the publishers would do well to support anything that helps people to carry on reading, and learn to love books, rather than to put obstacles in the way, and make it more expensive for readers and libraries alike.

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.

ReadWriteWeb’s Richard MacManus argues that Twitter should no longer be constrained by its 140-character limit. He says TweetDeck has recently introduced Deck.ly, which enables longer messages (although it appears to be roundly hated by everyone I follow on Twitter) and it’s only a matter of time before Twitter itself follows suit, in order to be more fully embraced by the mainstream.

I think MacManus is wrong. The mainstream embraced short-form messages in the SMS age, and so Twitter is hardly tough to grasp. But if Twitter did ditch the character limit, it has a lot to lose. The forced brevity of tweets is a major part of what attracts people to the service: anyone posting is forced to be brief; consumption is quick. With longer tweets, you end up with realtime public messaging that’s little different from some kind of hellish full-post RSS feed that never goes away.

MacManus:

If Twitter drops the 140 character limitation, I think Twitter producers will adjust and only post longer tweets occasionally. Twitter will need to monitor that somehow, but – barring a drastic change in user behavior – Twitter users won’t stop producing short tweets just because long ones become available to them. They’ll use the long tweets sparingly, because they’ve been habituated into doing short tweets.

People use what’s available to them, and it only takes ‘noise’ (i.e. stupidly long tweets) from a few parties to wreck the magic of the service. If you want longer messages, get yourself a blog and fire post headlines to your Twitter feed

MacManus again:

As for new users, Twitter will need to effectively convey in their marketing that Twitter is ideal for short-form real-time messaging.

So from a focussed “here’s what it’s for” message to one that’s muddied with “well, it’s good for this, but can also be used for that”. Yeah, I can’t see any problems with that idea.