Apple’s often been praised for its packaging. A lot of thought goes into the boxes that house Macs and other Apple kit, ensuring your first experience with a product is a pleasurable one—before you’ve even turned it on.

I today set up a new AirPort Extreme after my old one abruptly died (and, no, I’m not looking forward to the Genius Bar appointment, trying to explain UK consumer law to someone saying “but it’s more than a year old, so there’s nothing we can do”). Like a lot of other Apple kit, it comes in a two-part card case. The base houses the unit, and you slide off a sturdy card sleeve, which is typically very snug indeed.

For the iPhone, which sits flat on a base, this works fine. But the AirPort Extreme is a narrow, tall unit, and the box is therefore tall and narrow. You’d think Apple would have made allowances for this in its box design, right? Nope.

On the left you can see the box’s base and on the right the unit itself. On pulling the card sleeve free, my unit unceremoniously went CLUNK on to the desk, fortunately only from a few centimetres. I’m grateful I wasn’t opening this box above our wooden floor, or I’d be down two AirPort Extremes for the week, not just one.

You might argue that it’s only a box, but this design showcases a lack of attention to detail and usability. The box still looks great, but it’s form over function—it works poorly in practice and also when taking into account expectations, namely that your new purchase won’t end up sailing through the air as you attempt to free it from its packaging.

As I recently wrote, Tap! magazine was cancelled. As always with Future Publishing, you get a single-page PDF alongside the final issue, stating that because no more issues are being released, you should seek a refund. I’d not tried this in the past with any publisher, because the amounts had been tiny (I’d been fortunate in mag cancellations almost coinciding with the end of a subscription period), but my Tap! subscription refreshed only a month or so ago.

I duly wrote to iTunes support as follows:

Future Publishing has stated Tap! has ceased publication and no new issues are going to be released. I am therefore writing to get a refund for my outstanding subscription.

A couple of hours later, I got an email from customer support:

Craig, I’m delighted to inform you that under the circumstances, I’ve determined that a refund is appropriate.

Job done. Only then on Twitter, someone mentioned this hadn’t happened for them. Instead, they were told the refund request was carefully considered”; however:

[…] according to the iTunes Store Terms of Sale, all purchases made on the iTunes Store are final. This policy matches Apple’s refund policies and provides protection for copyrighted materials.

So, which is it? Are Newsstand subscriptions ‘final’ purchases where your money vanishes if a publication does? Are you entitled to a refund? Is it all just a crapshoot, depending on which person deals with your support request?

Right now, despite my good experience, I can’t say I’m full of confidence regarding Newsstand beyond monthly subscriptions. I’ll certainly not be taking out another annual one until Apple confirms one way or another what the state of play is. If Apple PR responds to my email, I’ll update this article accordingly.

It was September or October 2010 when I got a call from Christopher Phin. I’m not sure where he was, but it was very loud and I couldn’t make out much of what he was saying. Still, I did manage to hear something about “iPhone” and “magazine” and “Would you like to edit the games section?”.

A couple of weeks later, I popped over to Bath (home of Future Publishing HQ), we bashed heads, and we set about crafting that part of the magazine. I was very keen to ensure the games section covered big hitters but also indie software, and was entertaining and fun to read. I wanted to bring back some of the irreverence that I used to enjoy so much when reading games mags of old. Wonderfully, Christopher totally agreed—I recall many of our notes being almost identical—and off we went. Issue one arrived, and I’m not sure I’ve ever been quite so excited to receive a copy of a publication I’d worked on.

As the issues flew by, we fashioned a little team of fantastic games writers, and we really invested in everything we covered, spending far too many hours immersed in digital touchscreen-controlled worlds. Some of our reviews decidedly bucked the trend, but they were always honest. Often, they were also brilliant fun to read. Additionally, we got the chance to round up some of our favourites in our ‘if you loved…’ articles, which Apple’s just started doing itself on the App Store. It was so much fun.

If this all sounds like a memorial, that’s because it is. Tap! magazine is no more, and issue 32 (August 2013) is the final edition. Needless to say that I’m gutted, but also immensely proud of what the team managed to do. I’d therefore like to sincerely thank Christopher for giving me the opportunity on the mag, Matthew Bolton for his help and enthusiasm over many issues, and Christian Hall for being a brilliant editor when Christopher was installed as the new head honcho over at MacFormat. Also, thanks to Tom Harrod for making sure my words were in the right order, and also to everyone who contributed to the games pages. You were all fantastic, and I shall miss working with you so much.

So, here’s to you, Tap! You were brilliant. And if anyone out there’s thinking “man, we right now totally need some British guy who used to edit a games section to write about iOS games for us, at least if he can tear himself away from Impossible Road for five whole seconds,” drop me a line at craiggrannell@googlemail.com.

The App Store today turned five, and Apple’s been celebrating by making a bunch of apps and games free. (Top tip: they’re all worth a download.) Today’s app landscape is incredible. Apple reckons over 900,000 apps are available, and devs have made billions of dollars from iOS. Not bad for a platform that on launch had just 500 titles.

But which apps have really stood out over the years? Which have influenced those that came later? I knocked heads with Stuff’s editor and we came up with ten apps that changed everything. Doubtless, you’ll have your own thoughts on which apps were hugely important; if so, please leave a comment on the Stuff article (or here, if you like).

I hope you enjoy reading the feature and that it brings back some warm memories!

You’d think the BBC might have learned, but after mis-quoting Paul Chambers’ Twitter Joke Trial tweet as part of a general ‘bereft of senses’/social media shitstorm, it’s now done much the same with Justin Carter case: Should online jokes be criminal?

If you’re unfamiliar with the story, US teen Justin Carter unwisely posted something stupid online and an anonymous tip-off led to him languishing in jail on suicide watch, faced with a potentially lengthy jail sentence. What did he post? Well, according to the BBC, this:

I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten

And watch the blood of the innocent rain down

And eat the beating heart of one of them.

Dumb, right? I mean, really dumb. But, you know, he’s a teenager, and, as reported by the Washington Times and plenty of other places:

the next two lines were lol and jk,” said Jack Carter, Justin’s father.

You won’t see those lines in the BBC’s article.

I don’t doubt people should think more before they rattle off some kind of obscene stupidity online, and it’s true online ‘anonymity’ leads certain people to be, frankly, arseholes, safe and secure in the knowledge the person or people they’re broadcasting to won’t be able to retaliate. However, organisations like the BBC do no-one any favours by shaving off bits of the story. An exclamation mark and word or two in the Chambers tweet, and the ‘lol’/’jk’ additions in the Carter case totally change the context of what was written.

Fortunately, the BBC’s article subsequently at least attempts a level of balance, exploring both sides of this kind of incident. That said, I do worry that we’re now seeing government agencies attempting to make examples of people, in order to stifle any kind of online dissent. If not, they’ve actually lost the ability to distinguish between idiotic banter and genuine threats, which is just as big a concern.