“Glances, for instance, don’t respond for four to six weeks after ordering.”
“Glances, for instance, don’t respond for four to six weeks after ordering.”
An interesting new iOS app that allows you to highlight and share screenshots of webpages on Twitter. I wasn’t aware of this trend until I saw Joe Caiati’s piece about it on dot info. I’ve seen people tweeting screenshots of their notes application as a way to write more than 140 characters without the use of a third party service, but screenshots of webpages with highlighted text is brand new to me.
I’ve mostly ignored this “text shots” (or “screenshorts”) trend until Neven Mrgan noted one of OneShot’s most compelling features:
It also promises to do something magical: figure out from your Safari screenshot the actual URL of the source page. Or rather, it promises to try it. The screenshot doesn’t actually include the URL, so what (I think) the app does is, it runs OCR on the URL at the top of the page, then checks that website for recent articles.
Now here’s where magic meets honesty: OneShot shares its uncertainty with you. If it’s not totally sure about which article you want to highlight, it has you choose it.
OneShot’s ability to figure out the URL to the webpage you’ve taken a screenshot of is fascinating to me. And, I love that the app will guess and give you options if it doesn’t know for sure. It’s much better for the app to ask rather than simply publishing its guess and getting it wrong.
For myself and many others who already have an outlet for this type of quoting and linking, I don’t expect text shots to go too much further than a few experimental tweets. But, I could easily see this trend catching on with Twitter users who are looking to share links with more specificity.
Regarding the grid Apple debuted as a guide for icon designers:
No icon designer I’ve asked thinks Ive’s grid is helpful. In that sense, it’s wrong. The large circle is too big. Many apps in iOS 7 use it: all the Store apps, Safari, Messages, Photos… In all these icons, the big shape in the center is simply too big.
I was intrigued by the new icons in iOS 7 because I liked the direction they were going, but I couldn’t put my finger on why they looked so weird to me. Neven explains it quite well and once I read his piece I couldn’t stop seeing how big those inner circles are on many of Apple’s icons. They look terrible.
I’m still not sure about the rounded corners on the new icons but I’m certain I’ll grow into them. However, the size of the guide’s inner circle is something that will bug me until Apple encourages designers to change or the designer community decides that Apple is wrong.
Neven Mrgan’s idea for using the iPhone’s Spotlight search to find where an application is located on your home screens.
It’s a neat idea but I think it’d be even better if a tap and hold action gave you the option to open the app or reveal it on your home screens. Choosing the latter would jump to the applications home screen and open the folder it’s in, if necessary.
Neven Mrgan points out that iCloud would be quite odd if it only held items purchased from iTunes:
What would your iTunes-purchased music library look like? I had a suspicion mine would be pretty small and weird. There’s a quick and easy way to find out. In iTunes (the app. The Mac app. You know what I mean) go to File and create a New Smart Playlist. Set only one rule:
- Kind contains Purchased AAC audio file
That oughta do it. Now listen to nought but this playlist for a while. How does it feel? Does it feel a bit weird? Are you weirded out right now?
Out of the 1300+ tracks in my iTunes library, only 92 of them have been purchased from the iTunes Store. If iCloud only includes music files purchased from iTunes, it’ll probably be marketed as a way of backing up your purchased content, not as a streaming music service that holds all of your media.
MG Siegler points out that many of Marco’s arguments for Apple not entering the television market are also good reasons to enter it. The television industry could use some sort of iPhone-like change that would force manufacturers to build better products that offer a drastically improved user experience. And Siegler thinks Apple is the right company to do it.
There is just so much potential here and no one is doing anything with it. TiVo tried, but they just didn’t have the firepower. Apple does.
All of Sielger’s arguments seem quite convincing, but I just can’t get past this point:
As for the warehouse argument, Apple already makes a ton of 27” iMacs. These would be considered pretty big TVs just a decade ago. To compete now, they’d likely have to do 40” or 50” models. But they’re really not that far away from it.
The biggest problem I see with an Apple HDTV is having enough space in the back room of their retail stores. Yes, Apple sells a lot of 27-inch iMacs, but those iMacs are sitting in warehouses and stock rooms in place of the 24-inch iMacs that preceded it. These theoretical HDTVs are brand new products that would need to take up new room in retail stock rooms. Not only would every single Apple retail store need to have room to stock enough HDTVs to sell for a week or so, they will need this room in addition to all of the space that their existing products already take up. These are physical limitations that may require some of their smaller retail stores to relocate or rent out new space for additional stock.
Chris Dixon’s response takes a look at analyst’s reactions to the iPhone when it was announced in 2007. They seem a bit silly today because none of their arguments seem to have mattered in the long run. But, none of them seemed outlandish when they were published four years ago. If Dixon’s piece convinces you of anything, it’s that Apple won’t let the current market condition dictate their decision making — if Apple entered the market, it would change.
Neven’s piece mentions the possibility that users just don’t want a more computer-like television experience:
Everyone wanted a pocket computer. But I’m not sure everyone wants a living-room computer. That has been attempted before, quite awfully so; perhaps Apple can do it better. But perhaps they can’t, because perhaps people don’t really want it that much.
A valid argument. And one that supports the idea that Apple isn’t going to enter the television market, at least not yet.
Neither Chris Dixon or Neven Mrgan mentioned the physical limitation of retail stock rooms in their responses to Marco’s piece. But, I think this is the biggest problem. Sure, they could convince millions of users to upgrade their televisions more regularly. They’ve done it with nearly every other product they’ve released. And, they could probably make deals with cable companies (if necessary, although I’m not convinced that it is) to ensure that they don’t attempt to block or slow down internet traffic coming to or from Apple’s televisions. But, this doesn’t solve the stock room and warehouse problem.
I do believe Apple will enter the television market at some point, but not yet. Apple didn’t just jump into the cell phone market head first, they tested the water with the Motorola ROKR first. And I think we’ll see a similar strategy here. I expect Apple will spend a couple of years licensing AirPlay to television manufacturers before they jump into the market themselves.
From Neven Mrgan’s tumbl:
In landscape orientation, anything between 4:3 and 2.39:1 feels natural to humans. Now switch to portrait – 16:9 feels pretty weird. […] Every aspect ratio is a compromise. If a device is ever to be used in portrait mode – and my guess is that people will use the iPad in this book-like mode most of the time – that compromise must result in something closer to 4:3.
Neven has published an image of what the iPad would look like in 16:9. I can’t imagine Apple designing anything that looks this silly.