Hipstamatic is a photography app that’s captured the imagination of myriad iPhone owners. The app enables you to switch lenses and camera types, aping film cameras and providing a little soul to otherwise sterile digital snaps. Synthetic Corp, the company behind the app, cunningly took advantage of the sheer number of people keen to create retro photos, providing various packs of lenses and effects, and also offering a print service. It’s an effective combination and a solid, entertaining app; the default set-up that you get when paying for the app is enough for some, but the add-ons are reasonably priced for those who want a little more variety.

Bizarrely, the company has now gone full-on freemium with a new product, Hipstamatic Disposable, with a pricing model that makes gold-farming games almost look reasonable, and also manages to more literally take photography back to the dark ages. This time, the app is free, and you pay for digital film. I am not making this up. Hipstamatic Disposable takes the major benefit of the digital age—not having to worry about the number of snaps you have left—and stamps all over it, in the desire to make money.

I hate the freemium trend. We’re way past value-add now and fully into the realm of gouging. We’ve seen golf games where you effectively pay for a few extra strokes, and now here’s a camera app where you pay for the film. I sincerely hope Hipstamatic Disposable falls on its stupid face and breaks its stupid digital lens, before some dolt starts working on a word processor where you have to buy sheets of paper and typewriter ribbons, or a driving game where you have to fuel up your car (with petrol prices defined by actual prices, to enhance the realism), or an art app where you buy little tubes of expensive acrylic paint that annoyingly dry out if you forget to put the little digital caps on to the little digital tubes before shutting down the app.

Of late, there’s been a rush in the tech industry to rip off Apple. Instead of companies innovating, they’re freaked out at the possibility of being left behind and have therefore decided on a ‘clone and maybe catch up’ mentality. The result: myriad non-Apple iPads, iPhones and MacBook Airs. Oddly, though, one thing many of these companies don’t do is ape Apple’s simple naming conventions. Take, for example, svelte notebooks, now referred to as ‘ultrabooks’. If you want to buy Apple, you get a MacBook Air. Simple. Go Windows, and you’re just as likely to get a PC brand, a possible sub-brand, and then a seemingly random string of numbers and letters, such as the Lenovo IdeaPad U300s, the Asus Zenbook UX31, or the Samsung 900X3A.

Perhaps I’ve been using Apple kit too long and my brain has rotted away, but these names don’t strike me as being memorable. They are, of course, a symptom of too much choice. Instead of streamlining output, companies tend to think consumers want an absurdly wide range of choice (spoiler: they don’t—they only think they do), and so provide dozens of alternatives. You end up with something akin to the car industry, where someone will be able to remember the company that makes what they want, and possibly the brand, but that’s it.

There’s evidence that some companies are slowly coming to understand the naming problem, if not the choice one. Samsung’s Galaxy products have reasonably distinct names, even if it’s not obvious which is superior. Does Europa ‘beat’ Apollo or Portal? Apple’s naming conventions may not be perfect, but an iPad 2 is clearly better than an iPad 1, and an iPhone 4S betters a 4, which betters a 3GS (the last of those being Apple’s naming nadir in the iPhone line). But then you nip to the Bada OS page and discover the Wave, Wave525, Wave 533, Wave II, Wave 723, and the Wave 578!

Why does Samsung need six Bada OS devices and 17 Android ones? Why does it feel the need to give them such baffling and unhelpful names? In simplifying the line-up and the names, it would have a better shot at making its devices memorable and less throwaway (although one might argue that’s precisely what Samsung’s going for—throwaway—to keep hardware sales ticking over regularly). It’d also be one aspect of Apple I’d be quite happy to see it—and others—replicate, simply because it makes life easier for consumers.

I write about stuff I know. I’ve been creating websites since the mid-1990s and although web design only accounts for a small proportion of my work these days, I understand the industry, and so I write about it. The same’s more or less true for other areas of design and tech. Sometimes, I find myself outside of my comfort zone, and when that happens, I research like crazy. There’s a good reason for this: I don’t want to look like a dick and, by extension, make the publication I’m writing for look like a dick, thereby making the editor look like a dick, who’ll then hunt me down and kill me with sticks (or, more likely, give me no more work).

A pity a writer for The Street didn’t today have the same kind of mentality and instead presumably had a thought process that roughly went:

• I have a story to write about Apple and flash!
• *googles “Apple and flash”*
• *writes story about Apple and flash, and Flash, confusing flash and Flash in a thoroughly embarrassing way*

A choice quote from the now re-edited article (my emphasis), as (at the time of writing) still live on DAF:

Apple is in talks to buy a flash storage company for mobile products called Anobit Technologies for $400 million to $500 million, Israeli newspaper Calcalist reports. If a deal were to materialize, it would be Apple’s biggest merger since bringing legendary founder Steve Jobs back to the company with NeXT in 1996. For a company that’s relied on inventing and growing internal products to win consumer loyalty, a flash-focused deal could potentially solve an oft cited bother of Apple’s popular iPhone and iPad products – their inability to handle Adobe’s Flash program that allows Web users to view applications, pictures and video.

The original article has since been updated, twice(!), to

reflect difference between flash memory hardware and flash software [sic]

Man, what’s going to happen when the guys and gals at The Street find that Jeff Beck’s Flash is available on iTunes, or that Queen’s Flash is also available? JOURNOPOCALYPSE!

Hat-tippage: @DSHowell and @jayenkai.

The BBC Internet blog reveals the UK version of the iOS iPlayer app now supports 3G and AirPlay.

The app is compatible with Apple AirPlay. If you are running iOS5, you can connect your iPhone or iPod touch to Apple TV and watch your favourite programme on your television.

This also works with the iPad. However, the app uses its own player rather than the default iOS one, and so this means you don’t get an in-app control for toggling AirPlay and firing BBC content at your Apple TV. So here’s a handy cut-out-and-keep* guide for getting AirPlay running using the iPlayer app:

1. Launch BBC iPlayer app;
2. Double-click your home button to bring up the multitasking tray;
3. Swipe this to the right, which should reveal playback controls—on the iPhone, you’ll need to do this a second time, to see the AirPlay button;
4. Tap the AirPlay button (a rectangle with a triangle pointing upwards) and select your desired output device;
5. Play your video.

Kudos to the BBC for finally getting AirPlay working in the UK iPlayer app (it’s been in the non-UK one for a while); here’s hoping that a future update makes activating AirPlay a little easier. Also, here’s hoping the BBC’s rivals realise that they, too, can offer AirPlay—it’s a bit odd that ITV, C4 and LoveFilm are all currently avoiding the tech like it’s a bad smell.

* Assuming you print it. Or chop up your display with really sharp scissors, you nutcase.

Dan Seitz writes a pair of articles for Guyism, showcasing an interesting line of thinking. And by interesting, I mean bonkers. He first tells you what tablets to avoid: BlackBerry’s Playbook (cheap but heading for a write-off); HP’s TouchPad and the Dell Streak 7 (discontinued); Motorola Xoom 2 (underwhelming sales and possible privacy concerns); and—drumroll—the iPad 2.

Now, the Xoom reasoning is a little odd, but the iPad one takes the biscuit and is worth quoting in full:

Why are we recommending you not bother with this one? Because the iPad 3 is inevitable next year, and there might even be two of them. It’s not worth $500 for a device that will be obsolete in three to five months.

Obsolete is a very loaded term, and it suggests a device is worthless. Claiming the iPad 2 will be obsolete when the iPad 3 appears is ludicrous.

So, what should we be buying? Which tablets aren’t “sinking like rocks”, according to Seitz? In his follow-up, he mentions three. For the business traveler/heavy laptop user, the Asus Transformer Prime, because Android tablets are never rapidly superseded, right?

[For] $50 more than the best iPad, you get a lot more for your money.

Essentially, for $750, you have a blazingly fast laptop and insanely quick tablet in one package. The Prime has a quad-core processor, faster than any other tablet on the market, more space that any tablet at its price point, and a better design. Even better, it’s got microSD and microHDMI support right out of the box, meaning you can expand it if you need to.

Sounds like a bullet-point checklist from the days of tech specs.

And for casual users and non-techies? Seitz hates the iPad, so I would have thought he’d mention the Kindle Fire. But he moans about “ongoing WiFi problems” and ends up recommending the Nook Color eReader and Nook Tablet, respectively.

Sometimes there just aren’t the words.