Henry Blodget’s up to his usual tricks on Business Insider, giving Apple a kicking. This time, it’s in the snappily titled Your iPhone Was Built, In Part, By 13 Year-Olds Working 16 Hours A Day For 70 Cents An Hour, with the less-than-subtle article URL of ‘apple-child-labor-2012-1’. Presumably the ‘-1’ suggests there’s an exciting sequel on the way in a few months.

The article talks about Apple kit like iPhones and iPads being manufactured in China, by people who “in some cases, have never even seen them,” and with “labor practices that would be illegal in the United States”. It talks about underage workers, removed when inspections occur, cramped dormitory conditions, the illegality of unions, workers being hurt by toxins and mega-carpal-tunnel, and so on.

Blodget does at least offer a little balance:

Importantly, Shenzhen’s factories, as hellish as they are, have been a boon to the people of China. Liberal economist Paul Krugman says so. NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof says so. Kristof’s wife’s ancestors are from a village near Shenzhen. So he knows of what he speaks. The “grimness” of the factories, Kristof says, is actually better than the “grimness” of the rice paddies.

So, looked at that way, Apple is helping funnel money from rich American and European consumers to poor workers in China. Without Foxconn and other assembly plants, Chinese workers might still be working in rice paddies, making $50 a month instead of $250 a month

But then he reverts to Blodget Standard Mode:

But, of course, the reason Apple assembles iPhones and iPads in China instead of America, is that assembling them here or Europe would cost much, much more — even with shipping and transportation. And it would cost much, much more because, in the United States and Europe, we have established minimum acceptable standards for the treatment and pay of workers like those who build the iPhones and iPads.

There’s of course nothing untrue about all this, and those of us fortunate to live in relatively rich countries rarely take the time to think who made our expensive Apple kit. But Blodget displays a remarkable lack of context in his article, and the sharp focus on Apple is typical of articles closer to internet trolling. Not only does he conveniently ignore Apple CEO Tim Cook’s recent email about improving working conditions and terminating suppliers that don’t live up to “Apple’s strict code of conduct”, but he barely touches on the fact that most smartphones, literal tons of electronics, and plenty of other goods (such as the cheap clothes people buy in many US and European chains) are manufactured in similar conditions.

But this is all about Apple. And here’s why:

If Apple decided to build iPhones and iPads for Americans using American labor rules, two things would likely happen: The prices of iPhones and iPads would go up [and] Apple’s profit margins would go down. Neither of those things would be good for American consumers or Apple shareholders. But they might not be all that awful, either. Unlike some electronics manufacturers, Apple’s profit margins are so high that they could go down a lot and still be high. And some Americans would presumably feel better about loving their iPhones and iPads if they knew that the products had been built using American labor rules.

Some Americans would feel better about that, but plenty would stop buying Apple kit if it wasn’t remotely competitive. And just because Apple’s making a profit, it should switch to the US, argues Blodget, but, what, its rivals should continue using Chinese labour? (They obviously would, too, because they’d finally be able to compete on price, which wouldn’t be the case if they too moved manufacturing to the US or Europe.) Also, what do the Chinese workers feel about this? They clearly don’t have the working conditions I’d like for myself, but if Apple pulled out of China, would they really be better off? Or would these people consider that an opportunity taken away from them?

This is a complex issue that’s far beyond ‘Apple is an evil, profit-hungry corporate giant’, and pundits and analysts should do better to recognise this, rather than churning out the same old word-sticks to belt Apple with. Also, you can bet that if Apple did switch manufacturing to the US and unveiled an iPad 3 at the less-than-enticing low-end price-point of $1000, Blodget would be first to his keyboard, banging on about how stupid the company was and how it was doomed. Again.

Twitter is moaning about Google and its Google+ integration (TechCrunch). The gist: Google is (perhaps unfairly) shoving Google+ pages to the top of results lists, and Twitter feels that it’s being hindered, despite often being more relevant. Here’s Twitter’s statement:

For years, people have relied on Google to deliver the most relevant results anytime they wanted to find something on the Internet.

Often, they want to know more about world events and breaking news. Twitter has emerged as a vital source of this real-time information, with more than 100 million users sending 250 million Tweets every day on virtually every topic. As we’ve seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter; as a result, Twitter accounts and Tweets are often the most relevant results.

We’re concerned that as a result of Google’s changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone. We think that’s bad for people, publishers, news organizations and Twitter users.

Of course, Twitter missed out a few tiny scraps of information:

• Twitter had a search deal with Google whereupon Twitter results were prominently displayed as real-time results. This was terminated in July 2011. This presumably caused Twitter results in general to be lost from Google’s archives. (It was, depressingly, at one point far easier to search for an old tweet on Google than Twitter. Now, even more depressingly, you cannot easily get to old tweets at all.)
• For the Guardian, Charles Arthur notes that Twitter does not provide Google with “unlimited access” to content.
• Twitter links take on the rel attribute with a value of nofollow, which instructs “some search engines that a hyperlink should not influence the link target’s ranking in the search engine’s index” (Wikipedia).
• Twitter’s own search is a joke, and the company appears to have no interest in making it more powerful. It’s fine perhaps for accessing the very latest tweets from a trend, but if you want to search anything else—including your own posts—you are stuffed.
• Twitter appears to have absolutely no interest in scaling its archive (or no capability to do so). Vaguely remember a tweet that someone sent you a few weeks back? Good luck in finding it! Want to find an old DM? You’re better off checking your email than your Twitter client or the Twitter website.

I’m a big fan of Twitter—it’s the only social network that I care about to any degree. But I find it a bit rich that the company’s moaning about Google’s latest actions when deals have been terminated for real-time content, and when Twitter has zero interest in its own archives, even those that are quite recent. I’m certainly not thrilled about the prospect of Google+ results unfairly gaining prominence, given the service’s relatively weak usage stats, but if Twitter wants to gain ground, it should get its own ‘search house’ in order and also resurrect the deal that shoved latest tweets right in people’s faces every single time they got Google search results.

Pretty much what it’s been doing for the past few years.

(Inspired by analysts and pundits. Written by someone who doesn’t want to be one of those guys.)

A lot of tech blogs have been linking to videos of Apple’s 2007 keynote, during which the iPhone was revealed. It’s worth watching it if you’ve time, not only to see one of the finest Steve Jobs keynotes (he was in great form that day), but also to remind yourself of just what happened in 2007.

People easily forget. We take for granted what has already been invented, and we consider smart, intuitive, sleek solutions the ‘obvious’ way. This, it’s argued, is now the way things have to be—there is no other way. At least, that’s the argument put forward by many of the current slew of companies watching everything Apple does, and then scrambling to copy it as quickly as possible. Smartphones, tablets, so-called ‘ultrabooks’ and even the Apple TV (hardly a massive success for Apple) have all been mercilessly ripped off in recent years. (For some particularly blatant examples, check Inspired by Apple.)

Now watch that keynote. Remember what smartphones were like in 2007, and how annoying and fiddly they were to use. It’s telling when you watch the various Jobs reveals; the audience gasps in astonishment and is genuinely thrilled by the iPhone’s various gestures, such as slide-to-unlock and pinch-zoom. This isn’t the usual ‘Steve said something so we must cheer’ that often went on at Apple events—this is genuine excitement at something new, something different, and something revolutionary.

But we forget. Multitouch is obvious. Pinch-zoom is obvious. Slide-to-unlock is obvious. The manner in which Apple designed its iPhone, its iPad, and even iOS itself? Obvious. Then why didn’t anyone else do this stuff first? Why did it take Apple’s iPhone to kickstart a smartphone and tablet revolution? If the slew of cloners out there all argue Apple didn’t really invent anything new, why didn’t they have iPhone- and iPad-like devices in the market before Apple? Why did Google’s Android rather rapidly shift from being a BlackBerry to an iPhone if the iPhone was so obvious?

The only obvious things for me here are that people need to think a little more before dismissing out of hand Apple’s current anger at practically every other major tech company effectively lifting its designs and ideas and reselling them, and that its rivals—with a few exceptions—need to learn to iterate and innovate, rather than just getting out their photocopiers yet again.

ION Audio has unveiled the next iterations of its iCade system (MacRumors). I reviewed the iCade in May last year, and was later dumbfounded by Taito and Atari churning out its own equivalents. A recent iCade fire-sale in the UK led to me finally buying a unit of my own (my review having been done on a loaner from ION), and, in hindsight, companies knocking anything up to 50 per cent off of the iCade should have been an indicator a new model was due. However, ION unveiled three.

First, there’s the iCade Core. This is essentially the iCade without the cabinet—you just get the plastic base with a joystick and eight buttons. It’s hard to tell from the photography on offer, but assuming the iPad can rest in landscape as well as portrait, I think this is a smart move on ION’s part. The cabinet version is cute and quirky, but it’s also a space-hog and very much geared at old farts like me. The iCade Core looks more like a standard games controller, which means less character but wider appeal. Bar more support from developers, the price will be the biggest factor in its success. I was happy paying 40 quid for my iCade, but there’s no way I’d have paid double that.

Next up, there’s iCade Mobile. This makes an iOS device like an iPhone or iPod touch resemble a PSP. You get a D-pad, four face buttons and four shoulder buttons. There are two clever pieces of engineering that put this above other controllers I’ve so far seen: the device sits very snugly in the controller’s rubber enclosure, and it can be rotated 90 degrees, enabling you to use iCade Mobile for portrait games. Again, support and pricing could be a problem: $79.99 seems a bit high.

Finally, there’s iCade Jr, which is on the wrong side of mental. It’s a miniaturised version of the original iCade, designed for the iPhone and iPod touch. I know I should hold judgment until actually using the unit, but it just seems bonkers. The original iCade is just about big enough for what it’s trying to do and be: a home arcade. iCade Jr looks like it will be extremely fiddly, and unless it has a brick in the base, it won’t have the weight to hold your device steady while you play. (If you’ve used an iCade, you’ll know that’s not a problem with the original unit.) Also, putting four of the buttons on the back of the controller seems like a recipe for usability nightmares.

Still, two out of three isn’t bad. I’m still not a huge fan of additional controllers for iOS, and I strongly believe that even most ‘traditional’ games (racers, platformers, and so on) can work fine with touch controls if the developer is careful. However, if there are going to be more typical controllers for iOS, I’d hope they’d be of a high quality and, crucially, designed specifically for the system. The iCade Mobile certainly seems like it nails the latter of those things, and I’m looking forward to checking out the former when I can get my hands on a review model.