I this morning awoke to find yet another email asking me how much it would cost for a developer to have their game reviewed and charges for placement. This isn’t nearly the first such email I’ve received—plenty have come my way, and more so since I started writing for Tap! magazine.

I find such emails hugely disheartening, because publications should not be charging for reviews (which some laughably refer to as ‘expedited’, as though it’s a good thing)—they should be curating on behalf of their readers and earning their money through advertising and readers paying for content.

Reviewers do get sent stuff—hardware, software, online codes—and sometimes they get to keep it. But there’s a world of difference between getting the odd freebie and outright asking people to pay you to review their wares. Gary Marshall sums this up nicely on Twitter:

It’s a betrayal of the readers. You’re in the scoring free stuff business, not the reviewing business.

I totally agree. So, devs, please stop asking me how much money I want to review your app or game, because the answer will always be nothing, and just the act of reading the email makes me sad. If you want me to consider your software for review, send me some information about it—a link to your website or to an App Store page; if it’s a paid app and you have a promo code handy, fire one over, so I can immediately install it on my kit, ready to check out later. But please don’t offer me money.

Good grief. I have a really busy week, turn my back for a moment and the entire bloody internet explodes about OMG GOOGLE GLASS IS TEH BEST! Bad internet! Go to your room!

Google outlines more about Project Glass on Google+:

We think technology should work for you—to be there when you need it and get out of your way when you don’t.

Call me old-fashioned, but I also happen to think technology should actually exist and be available to buy, rather than companies shitting out pointless concept videos. If Project Glass was available now, I might be all: “Hmm, that’s actually quite clever of Google.” But as a concept video? Gah! Did someone from Microsoft take over Google when we weren’t looking?

A group of us from Google[x] started Project Glass to build this kind of technology, one that helps you explore and share your world, putting you back in the moment.

Or pulling you out of every single moment by overlaying said moments with horrible pop-up messages and stupid advertising. It’s one step away from Google Mandatory Brain Implant, which would give you no escape from massive corporate giants desperately trying to sell you things and that git on Google+ who just won’t stop asking you stupid things, despite you practically begging him to stop.

As for exploring and sharing your world, things are bad enough with smartphone zombies walking along the streets during rush hour, staring glumly at their glowing screens while the world rushes by. With Project Glass literally sitting between you and the world, I expect a lot of people would start exploring the underside of a really heavy bus and sharing their innards with the world.

The sky is once again falling for Mac users, with many now hit by the Flashback Trojan. The BBC reports that 600,000 Macs might be infected! But that also happens to be a figure well shy of the number of viruses that can screw up Windows PCs.

Ultimately, infection from viruses and malware continues to be a numbers game. Such things are extremely rare on the Mac but less so on Windows. Apple has since released a security update, but once again an antivirus company started stiring:

“People used to say that Apple computers, unlike Windows PCs, can’t ever be infected—but it’s a myth,” said Timur Tsoriev, an analyst at Kaspersky Lab.

I don’t recall ‘people’ ever saying Apple computers can’t ever be infected—that is the myth. And, of course, Kaspersky Lab would be thrilled if millions of spooked Mac users suddenly started using its products. But the reality is that even those Mac users who don’t have a clue about security will be less likely to be affected by trojans, malware and viruses than their Windows PC-owning chums, and with Gatekeeper for OS X Mountain Lion, such problems will become even rarer on the platform. It’ll be interesting to see if Microsoft follows suit.

As ever, the best advice—on Mac and PC—remains the same: don’t open documents and files if you aren’t confident about where they came from and that they won’t screw up your computer.

Brett Terpstra is currently putting together a comparison document of iOS text editors, with the help of anyone who wants to contribute. It is turning into a wonderful thing for writers, who can now pop over there and do a quick scan to see what editor will best suit them. When the spreadsheet was first devised, word and character counts were missing from the list—something that has since been rectified.

The omission of counts is surprisingly common when it comes to text editors in their early stages and, in some cases, even when they’ve been knocking around for a while; in fact, iA Writer was initially missing any kind of count in its iOS app, and the Mac version lacks an on-screen count in windowed mode. This caused me to utter the following on Twitter:

Note to devs: if your text editor doesn’t include word and char counts, you’ve just rendered it useless for many writers.

Developer Alastair Houghton responded:

Note to writers: word counts are a much harder problem than you might imagine. You may want to be more specific.

Which is fair enough.

I find it curious so many text editors initially lack counts, but I suspect that’s because they’re created by engineers and developers who don’t do a lot of writing themselves, or at least only write without being commissioned by editors. But writing isn’t just about smashing out words—it’s often about smashing out a specific number of words.

When I write for a publication, I will be supplied with a brief (or a response to a pitch I’ve made) and a count. In the US and UK, this is most often a word count. In Europe and occasionally in the UK, character counts will be used instead. For print, this is generally a strict target, because copy has to fit into a predefined space. Online, there is more flexibility, but you will still be paid by the word or character, and so there’s not much point in writing five times what you’re commissioned to, unless you’re rich and just writing for yucks. (Additionally, focus and clarity are important in written copy—shorter pieces online tend to be read in their entirety. Write too much and you risk flabby copy, which won’t win you further commissions.)

On knowing your target, you need a mechanism to see how close to it you are: hence a word- and/or character-count in a text editor. Without this, you risk falling short (meaning you have to rewrite or, worse, ‘pad’ a piece of text) or massively overwriting (resulting in brutal editing, often cutting out great text that then becomes worthless). Either way, you’re potentially wasting time. And even if you do overwrite (which is very common—I typically edit down features from anything up to double the commissioned count), you still need to know how close to your target you are while working. This is because in-house staff won’t be happy if you file 5,000 words of copy for a 2,000-word commission. Regularly make a production editor’s job harder and they’ll mention this to the editor and you won’t be getting more work from that publication.

If you’re working on a text editor, here are three count mechanisms I recommend checking out, in apps I use myself:

• iA Writer for iOS: Optionally has an on-screen title bar that includes ongoing word- and character-counts. I’d also like to see a selection count, but just having the total document count is acceptable.
• WriteRoom for Mac: Optionally includes statistics in the title bar in windowed mode at the bottom-left in full-screen mode.
• Scrivener: Provides an on-screen word- and character-count, but also enables you to define a target for the current document. A bar then displays clearly how close you are to meeting this target.

Really, though, this is all about one of the most important aspects of development: learning the needs of your audience and how they use what you create. When it comes to writing, many writers need to know how much they’ve written, and so if you’re not providing that information (preferably permanently on-screen, but at the very least through a keyboard shortcut), you’ve failed them and they will very likely move to a rival app. But in a more general sense, this is the case for any app for any platform: exclude something enough of your audience considers essential and you are reducing your potential sales.

Gizmodo asks: What would it take for Apple to make a new iPad truly exciting again? Apple’s device is, after all, two years old now, and beyond totally revolutionising tablet computing and bringing with the latest version a display akin to print, it’s now a disappointment, argues Sam Biddle:

The new Apple iPad is kind of a paradox: At the same time it’s both the best possible tablet you can buy, and yet, it’s a disappointment. It retained the crown with an incremental performance bump.

See? (Obligatory link to ‘everything’s amazing right now and nobody’s happy‘.)

Waah, poor us: saddled with a piece of technology so well-executed in its first two iterations that the current generation is a letdown by virtue of not being Earth-shattering. We took a timeout from our tears to wonder: What would make a new iPad truly different, and even amazing?

People not banging on about how the new iPad isn’t amazing, despite the fact it kind of is?

Apple needs something that fundamentally changes the iPad.

As the new iPad’s terrible sales figures prove! (What we need is something that fundamentally changes tech journalism. Possibly involving mandatory lobotomies for many tech journalists.)

It needs something that makes the iPad a different, better sort of object, rather than just a refined one.

Because users and developers love nothing more than established popular platforms becoming moving targets. Just look at Android. Everyone loves Android!

Look, everyone’s a critic. We’re trying some constructive criticism—a wish list of ideas for a new iPad that actually feels new.

I WANT A UNICORN!

Luckily, Gizmodo then produces a list that doesn’t require magic or technology that doesn’t exist. No wait—it does precisely the opposite.

Imagine if the next iPad could run for days without a charge.

Imagine if electricity was free and smelled of strawberries!

Just imagine a subtle solar cell on the iPad’s back that would at least slow the battery drain while you’re using it outside.

Just imagine your iPad turning into the 2012 equivalent of a solar-powered calculator!

And focusing on a more efficient processor instead of a more powerful one would let Apple squeeze extra hours out of your pad—and we’ll take extra hours and days of life over a few aggregate seconds shaved off app launching.

Right up until Apple says it concentrated on the battery over the processor and Gizmodo runs with APPLE STUPID BERKS WITH RUBBISH PROCESSOR SCANDAL MEANS ANDROID WILL WIN.

And then we get “make it indestructible”, “make it flexible”, “improve the camera”, “resist the fingerprints” (OK, I like that one), “kill the Dock connector”, “GO GO GADGET PAGEVIEWS”, all before the wonderful finale:

Apple knows it doesn’t have to do any of this. For now. It can put out a minor upgrade every year and sell millions and millions more iPads—so why try? Because trying is what made Apple the most valuable technology company in the world.

If you’re still reading and your brain hasn’t exploded, here’s what not trying apparently  looks like:

• A Retina display considered by many to be among the very best displays that have existed, ever;
• Massive behind-the-scenes improvements in graphics power to ensure the screen doesn’t compromise performance;
• A battery that’s massively more powerful than its predecessor, housed in a case with roughly the same form factor.

Apple has shown that it can take its best current product (say, an iPhone 3GS), disassemble it, and put it back together as something golden and incredible and worthy of spectacle. Say, an iPhone 4. The step between those two phones was radical. The way the 4 was built, the way it felt, the screen, the camera that was like nothing else—it was dramatic.

I agree. The shift between the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4, which was mostly about improved performance, a better camera and the Retina display, really was dramatic.

A fundamental change.

Just like the new iPad. Which. Got. The. Same. Kind. Of. Changes.

After a few more years of institutional incrementalism, these iPad press conferences are going to stop justifying themselves. With enough cautious updates, the iPad will just turn into another thing you can buy. There’s no magic future there. But the magic future is what we all want.

The magic future is what we already have.