I don’t read The Times and it’s been a long time since I messed around with its iOS app, but I heard earlier today that a new version recently appeared and immediately got slammed by just about everyone who used it. And, oh my, the ‘10 tips to help improve performance‘ on the iPad 1 are simply stunning, including the following:

• Turning off “as many options as possible” in iCloud.
• Keeping Location Services “to a minimum”.
• Disabling notifications “for apps that are not essential”.
• Disabling iMessage entirely.
• Turning off multitasking gestures.
• Disabling Spotlight indexing.
• Nuking all existing browser history and website data.

The page cheerfully adds:

If you are experiencing problems, or require further assistance, our customer services team are available to help.

I shudder to think what their next tip would be. Presumably:

• Factory reset your iPad and only install The Times. The Times is all you need. THE TIMES IS YOUR LORD AND MASTER NOW.

Note that I do realise that app development is tough, and supporting older devices isn’t easy, but then the App Store reviews I’ve been reading suggest these problems aren’t in fact isolated to the iPad 1, which suggests a much bigger problem. More importantly, the big reason to use a digital newspaper is convenience, but if you have to hobble your device in order to get it to work, you may as well just revert to paper.

I’ve in the past rallied against Apple complicating its device line-ups, but I’ve changed my mind about the iPhone and would now be quite happy in the future to see an iPhone mini. The device that prompted this change of heart was… the iPhone 5. I’d not actually used one before, but TechRadar temporarily sent me theirs, so I could write a couple of articles.

I don’t like it.

This surprised me. I cannot think of another iOS device evolution I’ve not cared for. Even the iPad 3 didn’t bother me, because I skipped and never used the lighter, thinner iPad 2. Perhaps I’d get used to the iPhone 5 over time, but it simply doesn’t feel right to me. It’s ungainly and awkward to use—the taller screen feels like a compromise to enable Apple to strut its stuff in the bigger-screen pissing competition. On the iPhone 4, my normal-sized hand can comfortably use the device and reach almost all of the screen. On the iPhone 5, no chance. I have to stretch, which feels wrong; and as someone with RSI, this makes me wonder exactly how much pain I’d be in after long-term use.

Of course, one might argue I’m holding it wrong. I should, clearly, change how I interact with the device. But in switching from one hand to two or holding the device in a less secure manner, that feels like defeat. It feels like bending to the will of relatively poor ergonomic design, and it also makes me want to punch whoever okayed the rather misleading Thumb commercial.

iOS dev Neil Gall responded earlier on Twitter about this, saying “I’ve been yelling my distaste for the comically long, ergonomically challenged thing since launch,” and I get the feeling my wife’s going to cling on to her iPhone 4S for dear life, rather than upgrade. My mother also wanted an old iPod touch rather than the new one (with the same proportions as the iPhone 5), solely because of the form factor, although she went for the newer model on the basis of the superior camera. She’s still not overly happy with it.

Perhaps, then, the iPhone should have a ‘mini’ version somehow, although instead of a teeny tiny device, it could retain a similar form factor to the iPhone 4S. I don’t see that happening though—this summer, the iPhone 5 will be bumped one rung down the ladder and the iPhone 4S will probably become the free iOS device. One more revision and only 16:9 devices will remain. Ironically, the Android devices Apple clearly responded to with the new form factor will continue to offer more variation, including one of the current trends: smaller devices. It’s not enough to get me to switch, but then I’m now looking towards whatever iPhone Apple unveils this summer without any sense of excitement, for the first time.

App.net now has a free tier. You can now access the service if someone who’s paying for it sends you an invite, and you’ll then be able to follow up to 40 users and use 500 MB of storage.

I like the ideal behind App.net a lot. It’s an ad-free and open system on which to build apps. Alpha was the first, a Twitter-like microblogging service without the increasing bloat Twitter keeps welding to itself. In its current form, Alpha reminds me of the Twitter of old, but in being so it also lacks the richness in terms of diversity and varied communities that Twitter enjoys.

I’m also increasingly wondering, from a personal standpoint, what the point is of App.net. When I stop using Twitter, I miss it. This is in part due to being a freelancer working alone in a home office; Twitter is my place to discuss things with people and to find out about what’s going on in the world. App.net… I’m not really sure what that is. I guess it’s a bit like Twitter after some kind of armageddon-style disaster after which some of the techies survive. It’s a lot quieter, quite a lot geekier, and regularly has an echo. Then there’s also the file-storage aspect, but, you know, Dropbox. And CrashPlan.

Still, when I offered up my invites on Twitter earlier, they all went in seconds, and so there’s clearly an interest in App.net. People are curious. Whether that curiosity results in permanent growth of the service or a lot of people going “now what?” remains to be seen.

Harry Marks (who writes over and Curious Rat) and I have differing views about the state of media and how companies should respond to modern technology. When we’ve discussed things on Twitter, he’s very much in the ‘black and white’ camp regarding piracy, and will even go so far as to rebuy media digitally rather than ripping CDs to iTunes. I’m generally more of the opinion that media companies should be doing a lot more to make content available, accessible, affordable and not hugely annoying to use. Although I almost never torrent anything (one of the side effects of having a reliable but capped broadband connection), I find it hard to sympathise with companies whose work is widely distributed in that manner when they’ve been region locking it in some way or charging obscene money.

Today though, I’m mostly of the same opinion as Marks regarding his takedown of John Siracusa, who decided to whine about credits being attached to every episode of Netflix’s House of Cards. Marks says:

First, the problem was not being able to get the content we wanted when we wanted it. Then, came the laments about pricing. How dare seasons of television cost anything more than [INSERT ARBITRARY NUMBER… I REMOVED FROM MY RECTUM]!

Now, people are getting their panties in a twist over having to sit through opening credits? Where does it end? At what point does this blatant selfishness turn into, “I hate this actor/these mushy love scenes/this director. If you remove all of that, I’ll be beating down your door to give you money, then complaining some more.”

Netflix has its problems—the lack of a ‘wish list’/’save for later’ option is especially annoying—but credit sequences aren’t one of them. They’re a staple of TV, and although you might choose to watch several episodes in a row, until the systems are intelligent to recognise this and chop out the credits, you’ll just have to sit through them. Except you won’t, because Netflix—unlike many shiny discs—doesn’t lock the content it’s streaming and you can fast-forward through it. (Additionally, such sequences often have ‘previously’ sections, which might include a useful reminder that you’d otherwise miss, thereby making your experience worse. This won’t be rectified until we’re all wearing Google Chip In Brain™, some time in 2017.)

Mind you, here’s where I depart again from Marks, who says:

So, I’m going to finish this season of House of Cards and sit through every opening credits sequence because people worked hard to build it.

But if and when I also watch that show, I’ll sit through one credits sequence and fast forward through the rest. What I won’t do is complain about them.

I’m getting increasingly tired of the tech pissing contest, with everyone suing everyone else for every possible potential infringement, and I was idly wondering recently if there’s ever a line companies would not cross. It appears not. AllThingsD reports on Samsung’s latest shot across the bows at Apple:

A Mannheim Regional Court on Friday ordered a stay of a Samsung suit against Apple that alleges the iPhone maker’s VoiceOver screen-access technology violated its patent on display into speech data.

VoiceOver is accessibility technology, designed for people with impaired vision. In short, it enables blind people to use iOS devices, which gives them relatively easy access to information in a manner previously unheard of. AllThingsD notes:

Yes, this move by Samsung against Apple was a tactical one in a nasty battle in which billions of dollars are at stake. Yes, it’s just business. But it’s ill-conceived.

I’d say it’s reprehensible. There are some things lawyers should just leave alone, and I genuinely hope Samsung gets a seriously bloody nose from this

Further reading: David Chartier’s story about watching a blind Apple Store employee use VoiceOver. Via 512 Pixels.