Month: March 2011

Drive-by Mobile Tests

I went on a quick stroll through Best Buy today, and tried a lot of the devices I’ve been reading about for the last couple of months:

  • The iPad 2 is impressive if only for its reduced mass and flat back, which led many to claim that it feels totally different to hold compared to its predecessor (The white version is stylish, but I think the black bezel better complements the screen.) But for all other purposes, it’s a tiny update to the original iPad: even better for new users, while us early adopters stay current.
  • My first impression of the Motorola Xoom was nothing like that of the many tech reviewers – the hardware was solid, and the UI is at the same time surprisingly powerful and usable, especially for the first version of a totally new UI. Apps intended for smaller phones scale to tablet sizes better than iPhone apps do on the iPad. Holding the tablet in portrait orientation is actually pretty nice – I think most reviewers are just too accustomed to the 4:3 iPad. The biggest surprise, however, was that the Xoom’s browser sucks. It does tabs like a desktop browser, but beyond that, its performance trails far behind any mobile browser created in the last four years. It surprises me that an internet services company – the one behind Chrome, even – lags so far behind on mobile browsers. Continue reading Drive-by Mobile Tests

Apple’s Advocate Explains the Grab for 30%

Like many, I reacted very negatively to Apple’s new policy: any paid content inside iOS apps be available through Apple’s subscription system, must be available at the lowest price, and must give Apple a 30% cut of that price.

John Gruber has written a very thorough analysis of the popular arguments against this new policy, and attempts to divine Apple’s reasoning for implementing it:

Apple doesn’t give a damn about companies with business models that can’t afford a 70/30 split. Apple’s running a competitive business; competition is cold and hard. And who exactly can’t afford a 70/30 split? Middlemen. It’s not that Apple is opposed to middlemen — it’s that Apple wants to be the middleman. It’s difficult to expect them to be sympathetic to the plights of other middlemen…

This is what galls some: Apple is doing this because they can, and no other company is in a position to do it. This is not a fear that in-app subscriptions will fail because Apple’s 30 percent slice is too high, but rather that in-app subscriptions will succeed despite Apple’s (in their minds) egregious profiteering. I.e. that charging what the market will bear is somehow unscrupulous. To the charge that Apple Inc. is a for-profit corporation run by staunch capitalists, I say, “Duh”.

Gruber has scored a direct hit on Apple’s strategy, and his explanation makes it seem very solid for Apple, its customers, and content creators. The biggest losers are Apple’s competitor middle-men. I think Apple’s main interest is being the best damned middle man in the business. The only problem is that some of those middle-men make products I really like, and Apple will only play ball with them if Apple gets to make the rules.

Daring Fireball: Dirty Percent