I did not expect that the iOS 11 GM leak would be bested less than a year later. The accompanying iPhone XS name leak is nice, but this new Apple Watch is awesome. Whatever you think about the new clock face design, it’s great that Apple has tried something more radical than just stretching the current square layouts to a 20% bigger screen.
This is information density on steroids, fitting eight (or nine) complications into a single analogue watch face. The complications are also far richer than the current generation of watchOS offerings. The way in which the corner complications curve around the dial is not merely beautiful, it also packs in more information. Weather will now represent the high and low temperatures, for instance.
I love how the next calendar event is inscribed in-band with the tick marks on the clock face. That feels so refreshingly modern and also harkens back to horological classics. This might be a ninth complication that can present any arbitrary line of text, or it might be a feature inherent to this particular watch face. After the initial dumbstruck shock-wow factor wore off, I would be a bit worried that this face is perhaps too crowded and busy. However, all Apple Watch faces let you set their complication zones to ‘None’ to hide them, and I see no reason to suspect that this will be any different.
I tweeted that this is the most discombobulated thing Apple has done in years, I got a lot of flack, I reassessed, and I still think it’s insane. Apple released a major feature for a product they don’t sell anymore. This is way more ridiculous to me than Apple charging $200 for a leather sleeve, or missing a deadline for announced features.
I am not saying that this is bad for owners of the second-generation AirPort Express. It’s great that there is now a way to bring dumb speakers into the AirPlay 2 ecosystem, connecting via the Express’s aux input. Specifically, the absurd part of this is that they rolled this out to a product that they discontinued months ago, the Express has been delisted from the Apple Store, and there isn’t a replacement product for people to buy that can achieve the same result.
What does Apple expect people to do? Scrounge on eBay for some second-hand AirPort Express units and hope they win the treasure hunt bidding war? When Apple updates iOS for older iPhones that they no longer sell, with iOS 12 going all the way back to the discontinued iPhone 5s, they are advancing a platform. The features introduced in iOS 12 are available for customers buying the currently-sold new-in-box phones. The support given to the older phones makes their owners more likely to buy another iPhone when they come to upgrade, and it advances the app ecosystem by carrying forward millions of existing customers as potential markets for developers making apps that targets the latest and greatest OS.
The AirPort Express has no successor, no future, and no substitute. The closest alternative is buying an AirPlay 2 receiver I suppose, but I think that’s obviously aiming at a very different demographic. The Express is like a Chromecast, a glorified dongle. The AirPlay 2 ecosystem does not have an equivalent product, apart from a product that you can’t buy anymore. That’s really screwed up messaging in my book. When the decision came down to retire the AirPort line, the work on this feature should have been axed as well. What has actually happened is completely incongruous.
What I hope Apple introduces is a rebranded/redesigned AirPort Express for $49, that ditches all of the wireless networking stuff and just acts as an AirPlay 2 audio repeater. Maybe it will be manufactured by Apple’s new best friend, Logitech. Perhaps Beats will make one. If such a product existed (and maybe it will in a couple weeks), I would be less riled up. At least then, you could point people to something that serves the same role as the Express. The status quo is ridiculous. (By the way, the method for updating the AirPort Express with this posthumous software update is through AirPort Utility. The iOS AirPort Utility app is letterboxed on the iPhone X display.)
Did you know that weather information in Apple Weather is provided by The Weather Channel? And Stocks uses Yahoo Finance? It’s hard not to know. Both the Weather and Stocks app on iOS feature the logos of Weather Channel and Yahoo prominently in their user interfaces. At some level, it’s nice to know where the numbers are coming from, so an acknowledgement in the apps is probably sensible. But it goes further than that.
If you use weather or stocks widgets, scroll down to the bottom of the widget screen. There’s yet more credit given to Yahoo and the Weather Channel; small print, logos and links to the respective company’s websites that open in Safari when you tap on them. It’s not just interfering with Apple’s visual OS design. The HomePod will regularly announce to you what it uses as a data source when you ask for weather or stock information, lengthening Siri responses that should be short and sweet. These credits are everywhere.
This stuff has been playing on my mind for a while. Only recently, did it hit me how antithetical this is to Apple’s ethos. Why does Apple allow for third-party company logos to besmirch their user interfaces, not just contained within apps but across the OS, when the hardware group refuses to put any stickers or logos on their products that are not their own. The rejection of the Intel Inside program is a long-told anecdote. The same company that forces shopping malls to change the color of the light shades in front of the Apple Store.
The best answer I have is — something something legal issues. I would love if someone could enlighten me here, but it instinctively feels like a problem Apple could solve by writing a cheque. An interesting parallel is the Safari search engine. Apple doesn’t pay Google, Yahoo or Bing to be featured in the search field. The search engines pay Apple. Google literally forks out billions to remain the default iPhone search provider and they don’t get to put their logo anywhere in Apple’s UI. The autocomplete results are titled ‘Google Search’, set in Apple’s San Francisco typeface, and that’s it.
It’s easy to gloss over this stuff as someone who buys new devices frequently, but if you’ve used the iOS 12 beta, the performance focuses of this release makes a difference — even on the iPhone X. The thing that I notice the most is the share sheet.
On iOS 11, pressing share meant waiting several seconds for the activity view controller to start rising up from the bottom of the screen. On iOS 12, the sheet displays instantly. Or at least, the appearance transition is instantaneous. The share sheet lazily loads the contents of its rows, so the OS feels responsive even if it hasn’t quite finished gathering all the third-party extension information that it needs. Occasionally, the sheet pops up and both the bottom rows are just displaying loading spinners. A beat later, the app icons and actions pop in. I assume this happens more often on slower hardware. Regardless, the difference is night and day. Showing something, and populating the complete data a couple seconds later, is so much better from a user experience standpoint than waiting for everything to be ready before starting to display the view.
The iOS 12 performance changes are a combination of these visual touch-ups and genuine speed optimisations. The share sheet is faster overall and presents its UI as soon as possible.
It’s sad that we ever got to a point where the keyboard can be shown 50% faster, but I’m thrilled to see these pain points addressed. It translates into meaningful, real-world, improvements. The overall reception to iOS 12 is going to be very positive because of it. It speaks volumes that performance is the first section on Apple’s iOS 12 features page.
The overhanging question about the focus on performance is whether it can be sustained. It’s great that these improvements are coming with this software cycle, but the impact is mostly moot if iOS 13 regresses and slows down older phones again. Apple has to make a concerted, ongoing, effort to maintain performance on all devices that the new OS versions support.
I did a double-take when I saw that the Mac mini was mentioned at all, but I’m not singing Apple’s praises on this one quite yet. Kuo specifically states that the Mini will get a processor upgrade. A product that last got a refresh four years ago deserves more than a simple spec-bump. There’s a lot of creative potential for the Mini form factor. It should be like the hey-day of the iPod nano, where Apple would try out wildly-different styles with each generation. If there really are no fundamental design changes to the product, then the Mini will carry on being a neglected part of the lineup, just not so neglected that it is allowed to be on a modern processor architecture.
The new low-cost notebook with a Retina display sounds like a perfect replacement for the Air line, and Kuo is backing down from his previous allusions to this new laptop being branded as MacBook Air, but there is still unanswered justifications for how this new computer is differentiated from its 12-inch MacBook brethren. Based on the fact that Kuo says the 12-inch is getting a processor bump, it seems to me Apple will continue to position it as the ultra-portable. I do not think the $999 13-inch will go out of its way to compete on thinness and lightness; it will very much comprise an Air-esque form factor featuring a high-resolution glass-bezelled display. It’ll be interesting to see what ports it has.
The iMac update is perhaps the most intriguing part of Kuo’s rundown. He specifically points out a ‘display performance’ upgrade in addition to new processors. The iMac display is already best-in-class, and there’s no obvious next step. High frame rate 120Hz ProMotion is the most natural progression in theory. Technically, I’m not convinced we are there yet. The bandwidth requirements alone are a huge challenge. I’m all for surprises, but I would be flabbergasted if Apple can ship high-framerate 5K displays this year, in a mainstream consumer machine.
As far as the mobile lineup is concerned, everything sounds great. I love the 12.9-inch iPad screen but, man, it’s a tank. Shrinking its bezels down helps curb its overall footprint, and it will look stunning in the hand. All this year I’ve been imagining an iPad with four bezels that are as slim as the 10.5-inch iPad’s side bezels. The dreams are coming true.
I’m also psyched by the details of the new watches. Kuo has been talking about 15% larger displays for Apple Watch Series 4 as early as March, but this time around he nails down exact dimensions; 1.57-inches and 1.78 inches. These numbers are easy to get mixed up because Kuo is referring to the screen diagonals. Apple markets the Watch as 38mm and 42mm but the size refers to the height of the overall case, bezel included. The current watches have a 1.34-inch and 1.53-inch screen, measuring diagonally. Assuming Kuo’s numbers are right, the new small watch will have a larger screen area than the current big watch.
These rumours are promising. I have complete confidence that Apple is not going to abandon the small watch market by making both of its watches physically 15% bigger. Watch customers are probably the most sensitive to form factor changes out of all of Apple’s products. When Apple moved from 4-inch to 5-inch phones, some people were annoyed that it would be harder to fit the phone in their pocket, or they’d have to start using two hands. With a wearable, if you make it bigger, it’s just not going to fit on people’s arms anymore. A bigger watch is not an inconvenience, it’s a practical alienation.
The screen size change has to be accompanied by a reduction in the surrounding bezels/chassis. A new look for the Watch is definitely due. The reality is, since the first model in 2015, the Watch design has only gotten worse (a couple millimetres thicker). Series 3 headlined LTE, Series 2 was swimming and GPS. Series 4 probably won’t have any major new feature like that. The bigger display obviously improves functionality, but the main appeal is cosmetics. This year, they are going to make the watch look different, modern, and new. I can’t wait.
The goals of this overhaul sound fantastic; accurate and richer maps with near-realtime updates to keep data fresh fed by Apple’s own ground truth fleet and anonymised data from iPhone users. Apple improving Maps with crowd-sourced iPhone data isn’t new per se, but the scope of this renewed effort is much, much, greater than anything they did before. The way Maps works today is basically Apple prettifying and packaging map tiles and POIs from a swathe of licensed third party data sources. This new initiative means Apple is making its own map tiles, literally from the ground up. It will maintain the source of truth for the first time.
Expect to see headlines of people spotting Maps errors that weren’t there before as Apple migrates over to the new system. The world is simply too large for there not to be some regressions. Theoretically, though, Apple’s modern Maps infrastructure will enable these errors to be corrected quickly. This highlights a critical element of this story. The pitch here is not just about a one-time maps upgrade, Apple is promising that Maps is now much more flexible to respond to ongoing changes in roads and buildings.
It all sounds great. The bad news is this rollout is going to be painfully slow. Apple says it will deploy the new Maps section-by-section, spanning all of the United States by the end of next year. It’s particularly bleak if you consider the possible timeline for an international launch. The Apple Maps LIDAR vans have been roaming the US since 2015. The only other country Apple has started to send its vans around is the United Kingdom. Based on their hesitancy with the US deployment, Maps 2.0 for the UK probably isn’t going to arrive until late 2019 at the very earliest. And I don’t need to point out that there are lot more than two countries in the world.
Rising from the ashes, iTunes Remote has been updated with a new design and support for the latest device form factors. The icon is greatly improved. It went from a white roundrect with an inscribed circle and harsh geometric triangle to a simpler coloured gradient and neatly-rounded play symbol. It’s a nicer icon than the stock Music app now.
Sadly, that’s where my praise ends. iTunes Remote reeks of ‘five years old’ flat design. The structure of the app is still stuck in the past, a lookalike of the Music app pre-Apple Music. The tab bar is still there, the Now Playing interface is in a horizontal navigation stack, and even the Search bar doesn’t use the iOS 11 integrated style. This would be okay … if the app didn’t try to mimic the modern Music app in other ways. The Now Playing screen shadows the iOS 11 Music/Podcasts player UI but it’s only surface level. The transport controls don’t expand or shrink in the same way, the font sizes are wrong and Up Next is segregated into a separate modal. Don’t get me started on the iPad version.
Looking slighter wider, what is the point of this app existing. Remote controlling your Mac’s iTunes app makes little sense in an era of AirPlay 2 and HomePod speakers. Also, Apple now has three separate places to find ‘media remotes’. There’s the iTunes Remote app, Apple TV Remote app, and the Apple TV Remote platter in Control Centre. Each of these tread on each other’s toes in different ways, but there’s not one app for everything either. It is messy. Before today, I was assuming iTunes Remote had run its course and was heading towards extinction. With this update, I just don’t know what the roadmap is here. Apple isn’t normally prone to carrying around legacy baggage.
3D Touch is hard to discover. Simple as that. It’s been three years since Apple debuted pressure-sensitive screens and I still have conversations with my family about how to access what should be simple features … features that just so happen to be gated behind a firm press gesture.
Apple’s usage of 3D Touch throughout the system is inconsistent. that they artificially wall off features with 3D Touch gestures, when they aren’t needed at all. In Control Centre, you should be able to long-press on the platters to open them up. There’s no reason for this action to rely on pressure. Another case of this kind of misappropriation is the ‘Clear All Notifications’ button in Notification Centre. A long-press could serve the same job, and it doesn’t. That’s weird.
In the Mail app example, peek and pop previews do necessitate a sensitivity to pressure. You apply less pressure to display the preview, and press harder to commit the navigation. You couldn’t do this with a simple long press. The question is then is it a problem that many users won’t ever think to do this. I’d say it’s not, Peek and Pop is merely a shortcut and not essential. The primary action, viewing the email, is always available with a simple tap. A shortcut behaviour does not warrant a permanent visual indicator. The email summary cells can be swiped left or right too, but we don’t reach to put an arrow glyph on either side of the screen to hint at all possible actions. It’s just there if you need it.
A third class of problem is cases where the same on-screen elements respond to pressure and long-press interactions. I’ve observed that human dexterity is not as good as you’d think a modern species would be, and it’s hard for people to apply the correct amount of force. As such, elements supporting both long-press and pressure-based behaviours are frustrating to use. The gestures clash way too often in practice; users accidentally press in on the screen and cancel their long-press, for example. On the iPhone, the obvious example of this is the app icons. You can long-press to make the icons jiggle and enable icon re-arrangement, or force-press and show quick actions.
Ideally, these situations should be avoided altogether. Fortunately, it doesn’t happen too often in iOS. For the Home Screen editing, I think Apple should provide an escape hatch to smooth out 3D Touch misfires; with quick actions visible, some sort of button in the corner of the screen to jump into jiggle mode.
All this to say there are better ways to make 3D Touch more approachable than to put little decorations on every UI element that responds to pressure. Remove the places where 3D Touch is an unnecessary gimmick, and refine the interactions where it is actually useful. Find ways to bring important features that are currently ‘hidden’ behind 3D Touch actions into the main interface on screen — rather than add repetitive, redundant, visual affordances that most users would be blind to anyway.
There’s a lot to digest this week, but this particular feature announcement keeps coming to the front of my mind. Here’s the pitch: you speak a question and it answers, no hot-word required. Really.
I’m fascinated by it. It’s one of those things that sounds like it would be far too risky for Apple to do it. How does the Watch determine if you are actually talking to it, or just raising your wrist — checking the time — and talking to someone else? The possibility for false positives seems very high and there is a big cost when the system gets it wrong; presenting a modal Siri response is a very intrusive interface action. I’m honestly shocked it passed approval by Apple’s privacy tsars. Even if they can correctly analyse utterances and determine intent reliably, this feature will mean the watch has to record and upload far more audio to the Siri servers than ever before.
Maybe I’m missing some clever trick that makes an implementation obvious. As described, it is bordering on magic. Given Siri’s patchy track record of intelligence, I can’t blindly trust them on this one. Raise to Speak is not available in the first beta of watchOS 5, so this will have to play on my mind for a few weeks longer.
I don’t care about the monetary value of this stuff. I’m sure Samsung and Apple don’t either; lawyer fees of an eight-year long legal case of this magnitude must already sum into the hundreds of millions of dollars. What Apple argued is that the infringement covers the full value of the copycat phones, not merely the value of the constituent components that cause the infringement. The jury sided with Apple on that, and I do too.
What’s great about this lawsuit is that it has dragged on for so long, the industry landscape has changed so much. Modern Samsung phones do not try and look like an iPhone at all. They have their own brand, their own style. A Galaxy S9 does not look like an iPhone 8 or an iPhone X. They are distinct offerings, and that’s great. In fact, whilst almost all other Android phone manufacturers have jumped on the notch screen design to leech off of the iPhone X’s curtails, Samsung defiantly treads a different path.
The upgrade to two terabytes on the $9.99 plan matches what Apple has offered for a while, and the 200 GB plan is priced the same. Google users can also now share their storage plans with up to five family members. I use Apple’s family sharing which shares our iCloud storage with up to six people.
I think it’s noteworthy that the Google Drive paid plans aren’t cheaper than the Apple offerings. In fact, Apple’s cheapest paid plan is $0.99/month for 50 GB whereas Google’s first paid tier is $1.99 for 100 GB. Clearly, Apple isn’t price-gouging its premium users. Where Google continues to lead is in the free tier. Versus iCloud’s infamous 5 GB, Google accounts get 15 GB for free on top of other perks like unlimited photo uploads in Google Photos. What makes this even more maddening is Google will give this storage to anyone, regardless of whether they have bought Google hardware or not.
Apple currently lets anyone trial iWork for iCloud with a 1 GB storage bucket. If you associate the Apple ID with an Apple device, it gets upgraded to 5 GB. If you buy a second-hand iPad from 2013, you can get 5 GB. If you buy a brand new $1000+ iPhone X, you get 5 GB.
There are some asterisks attached to Google’s free offering, whether that is resolution caps on photos and videos, data-mined ads, or whatever else. It’s all insignificant. There’s no way to reconcile this apart from saying Apple is too stingy to free cloud users — remembering that free users make up the majority of iOS device users. It’s saddening that the premise of an article I wrote in 2014 continues to hold.
I really, really, hope Apple sorts this out. Student Apple IDs now get 200 GB for free as a concession to the education market. You can argue over what is a fair number but at this point, I’ll take anything. If Apple only made the $0.99 tier the new free offering, giving away 50 GB to every Apple customer, it would make a huge difference.
This has been bugging me for a while — definitely since iOS 11 was unveiled last June and probably before then. I have no clue what Apple’s strategy is with their iOS app icon sets, other than to resign myself to the truth that there isn’t one. For simplicity, I’m focusing on just the share icon in this post (what Apple formally calls the ‘action’ button) but these criticisms apply much more widely.
iOS 7 infamously introduced 1px line icons for toolbars with geometric, boxy, shapes. Like all of iOS 7, this was a controversial shift from what came before it, but Apple did apply it consistently. Every bar icon in every app was transmogrified into this house style. The share button was simplified to a square with an arrow pointing out of it; this remains the system default today. Regardless of what you thought about the sterilisation, the pixel strokes complemented the restrained shadows and super-thin font choices of the original iOS 7 design.
Community response to this radical redesign was very split; I recall hating most of it. It didn’t seem like Apple was dead set on it either. Over time, Apple retracted some of these things. The font became less whisper-thin, popovers and other logical layers incorporated real drop shadows. The synergies with the icon set began to disappear.
There was divergence from the beginning with the Notes and Reminders apps, which inexplicably retained paper background textures. To further the realism, a letterpress effect was applied to the bar icons. You can see the normal share icon above third from the left, and the Notes version with inner shadows at the end-but-one position in the row.
Then, in iOS 9, Apple began to re-introduce pill buttons to iOS — buttons with background platters to indicate you can press them down — as well as bolder fonts in some new apps like Maps and News. They also emboldened some of the icons to match; you can see the Maps share button glyph on the far right of the collage. Apple made a whole new typeface, San Francisco, and it became the global system font. Weirdly, most icons and glyph were not changed at all despite a premise of iOS 7 being that the icons were supposedly symbiotically decided to match the typography.
iOS 10 added the Home app. It adopted what appeared to be the modern app appearance; bolder fonts aplenty and bubbly accessory tiles replete with filled, rounded, icons. In the toolbar, the ‘add’ and list symbols use thicker line weights. Still, most of the default suite of apps didn’t change.
iOS 11 pushed this further with several apps getting new tab-bar icons in the rounded style. Yet, other icons were not emboldened even with the same app. The Photos app has bubbly tab bar glyphs now, but if you tap into an image all those action icons are the same as what was present in iOS 7.
So, maybe the pattern is tab bar icons are rounded, but toolbar icons should stay as geometric line representations? The dramatic overhaul of the Podcasts and App Store in iOS 11 disagree. They have modern tab bar icons and modern glyphs. In fact, they have share icons that are not just curved shapes, but also two-tone. The arrow is opaque blue whilst the box is a lighter, desaturated, colour. See this in position 2 and 5. These are the only apps to have this variation of icon style currently.
Incredibly, that’s not the end of the story. iBooks in iOS 11 upgraded all of its toolbar icons to be bolded and rounded. This results in the first share icon in the row, which is my personal favourite. It’s bringing the essence of iOS 7 into a more sane balance of simplicity and elegance. It creates an icon that is more inviting, friendlier and visually more pleasing.
You may be wondering what the white-on-black icon is. That’s the share icon from Clips, from the 2.0 version released post iOS 11’s debut. It brings yet another genetic mutation into the mix; bold and round, but not as round as the other round iOS 11 icons. This might be my second favourite of the bunch; it’s also the one that reminds me the most of the iOS 6 era. I’m ignoring the differences in colour palette for all of these comparisons of course, it’s perfectly acceptable for each app’s tint and theme to influence the icon’s appearance.
My gripe is there is no consistency, no structure or logic to this. Apps introduced later sometimes use rounded icons, sometimes not, sometimes create all-new custom glyphs of their own. Incredulously, you could open flagship apps like Messages, Mail and Safari and have no idea Apple was even playing with bold icons as a conceptual change. These apps adopted the iOS 11 large bold navigation bar title formats, but their icons and glyphs have stagnated for more than four years at this point.
All the icons I’ve showed you here are from Apple’s built-in default apps. I expect them to set the standard for the iOS design language … but the reality is far from a perfect point. It’s scattershot, it’s a mess of competing visions. I couldn’t say what Apple’s human interface team wants the share icon to look like, let alone the structure and experience of iOS apps as a whole. Everything is in disarray.
If you followed a through-line of iPhone sales between today and two years ago, raw units sold have gone nowhere. If you compare back to 2015, the strength of the iPhone 6 cycle results in an even worse headline compare: iPhone devices sold are down about 15% since then. What keeps Apple’s financials in check is sustained rises in average revenue per phone. It’s really impressive that iPhone X continues to be the most popular model. This time next year, I predict that year-over-year unit sales rise but total revenue grows disproportionately less, with the mix shifting back towards Apple’s normal iPhone ASP levels as customers favour the cheaper 6.1-inch LCD phone. Don’t forget that Apple’s normal ASP levels are only ‘normal’ relative to Apple itself; the rest of the smartphone manufacturers would roll over if they could achieve anything close to that.
This quarter is definitely a case of over-bearish analysts dragging down expectations. I was surprised to see Apple’s guidance for next quarter is also comfortably above consensus estimates. What’s particularly interesting to me is reconciling the reports of weakened component demand with the stable sales, especially looking at Samsung’s OLED smartphone panel factory underutilisation. Did Apple expect the iPhone X to do even better than it did?
The discontinuation of the AirPort router line is one of those tricky Apple topics where I struggle to see a clear-cut ‘correct’ reaction. There are plenty of reasons to be upset and plenty of reasons to justify Apple’s decision making, and I do not think there is an obvious winner of the debate.
WiFi is critically important to all of Apple’s products. If you are using an Apple product at home, you are using a WiFi router, probably all day long. And what do most Apple customers use? A free/bundled router from their broadband provider, built to be as cheap as possible with little care for elegance or usability. There’s a magnetic compulsion to the market for the company that wants to control the entire customer experience with integrated devices that make using them all simpler. The Time Capsule also had a compelling secondary use as a plug-and-play disk backup device, and the Express helped extend the AirPlay music streaming ecosystem.
However, how much can Apple really effect these markets? The scope in numbers of customers is enormous, but establishing what Apple can do to differentiate itself from the bargain-basement routers from the cable company and the existing third-party WiFi router manufacturers is much harder. The biggest problems with WiFi are configuration and setup.
The AirPort devices were really good at this; you can create a network and connect to the internet with an AirPort Extreme without leaving the iPhone Settings app. And yet, these tasks are not common routines for normal people, I mean — by definition — setup only happens once. When WiFi is working, is using an AirPort product better than something from TP-Link or Netgear? Not really. AirPort range and performance will certainly beat out the freebie products but higher-end third-party (but still cheaper) equipment would generally benchmark the same or better than Apple’s offerings. As the AirPort line has languished over the last half-decade, the products have been trounced by the competition, especially as mesh systems become more popular. Even with a fresh investment, I struggle to see what Apple could today that was meaningfully ahead of the market.
Even in AirPort’s heyday, they weren’t very popular. Normal people don’t like paying for things they already have. I’ve seen plenty of people just make do with what they’ve got, in spite of crippling network black spots that I could never put up with. Apple could make the best router that ever existed and they still wouldn’t sell that many of them. Not only is that not great business, it also doesn’t help make the case that AirPort improves the experience of using iOS devices if nobody will have one in their house.
Of course, the premise of the Time Capsule is (ironically) a relic of the past. iCloud is a much better solution all-round to getting users to back up data regularly. Time Capsule was always a Mac-only accessory, too. iCloud has been Apple’s only answer for iOS data backup for a while. Now, it’s time for the Mac to formally join that party (perhaps with a full-disk iCloud Time Machine backup feature in the next macOS release).
The Express also doesn’t hold its weight as a router; I think Apple should offer an AirPlay 2 repeater but drop the WiFi stuff and make it really cheap, at least half off the $99 price tag of the ‘new’ 2012 AirPort Express. This product may indeed exist in the near term — merely without AirPort branding.
This leaves the AirPort Extreme standing on the legs of easy setup, simple iOS-integrated settings, and a pretty box. It’s a tough call but I think I see Apple’s argument for ending its life. I hope Apple launches some kind of partner program to integrate third-party router configuration into iOS WiFi Settings, giving them the primary benefit of what the AirPort line offered. Think AirPrint but for WiFi routers.
Maybe one day, the company will take another stab at it when they have a really good idea, when they can envision something that only Apple can do well. I think six years since the last update of any kind shows they were out of ideas, or at least weren’t motivated to continue it, for the time being.
For a few years, I had been repeating the same ultimatum when people asked about the fate of the AirPort product range: update it or kill it. At least, this AirPort announcement means Apple has finally divorced itself from one of its skeletons in the closet. Next up on the firing line, iPod touch, MacBook Air or Mac Mini?
I know this isn’t exactly a new trend, but the new Harry Potter game is a tentpole example of just how bad the mainstream iOS ‘games’ market has gotten.
The character creation and intro/tutorial were actually pretty cool. I was ready to be impressed. It’s very on-rails but the music is nice, they have voiceovers from some of the film cast and the visuals look great on the ultra-wide iPhone X display. You can move through environments by panning horizontally with your finger. The developers even implemented a variant on the normal iOS bouncy scrolling, with a slight camera rotation if you tried to pan beyond the extreme edges of the scene. There’s high production value here. I appreciated the attention to detail.
And then I hit the paywall. Less than ten minutes in, you are presented with a scene that you cannot progress without waiting up to half-an-hour, or fishing for your wallet. Even if you opt to do the former, the ‘game’ lets you do nothing else but wait for it to give you a free gem every three and half minutes; you need 5 total to continue on with the game. You cannot quit the scene. If you force-quit and relaunch the app, it takes you back to the same place with no escape. It’s like you are doing jail time for not handing over your cash. The Devil’s Snare setting makes for an amusing allegory.
Who knows how many times in the course of the game’s narrative that you hit one of these paywalled situations. This is one of the things that irks me the most. There’s no visibility into how much you should expect to pay. There’s technically no upper limit on what you could spend. Who knows whether the game will ‘generously’ give out free gems ad-infinitum. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a point in the game where it stopped distributing the freebies.
Of course, if you do choose to pay to speed up the time lockout, the game doesn’t let you buy the blue gems that you need five of. You have to buy a bag of different virtual (pink-coloured) currency, with prices starting at $0.99 and going steeply upwards. In game, you convert pink gems into the blue gems which you can then actually use to do what you wanted to do in the first place.
This is a classic psychological misdirection that helps to bury the true cost. You aren’t spending real money, you aren’t spending the virtual currency that you paid for. You are spending this adjacent sum. The indirection makes it harder for people to think about exactly how much a particular action is costing them.
Playing ‘Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery’ ultimately constitutes a sequence of cutscenes, managing three different in-game currencies and topping up your balance with real-money purchases. I use the word “playing” very lightly indeed. Add on to all of this, this game is clearly targeted at younger audiences, and I start to feel a little sick. This is a game that Apple is featuring. I want the App Store to enforce stricter rules on what freemium games are allowed to get away with.
I’m all for it. I think Apple has shown that customisation and individual personality are major selling points of the Apple Watch for customers. In the Apple Watch’s debut keynote, Tim Cook said as much: “it’s incredibly customisable, so you can find one that reflects your personal style and taste”. In the hardware, you have thousands of chassis material and band combinations to choose from. watchOS has a surprisingly plentiful number of interface options, with different modes for Dock, alternative Home Screen layouts, and countless complications and appearance styles for the faces themselves. A third-party Watch clock face store is the next big frontier in this space.
Opening up the primary interface of the Watch fits the themes of the platform. Whereas the lock screen and home screen of iOS remain uniform and locked down, with basically no user customisation opportunities beyond setting a wallpaper, watchOS has forged a different path. It makes sense that wearable devices are more adaptable. They are more personal.
What’s really fascinating about this rumour from a technical perspective is how will third-party faces be developed. What is the toolkit? The WatchKit frameworks are far too limited to support the rich, diverse, and dynamic interactions that a good Watch face would require. WatchKit is just not suited for making a clock face, at all. The introduction of a clock face SDK has to come with a new UI framework for watchOS. Something that is far closer to UIKit in freedom and flexibility. And — fingers crossed — this would be available for developers to use in Watch apps as well as clock faces.
As optimistic as I am, approach code references like this with some hesitation. A log message in a codebase does not necessarily indicate an imminent later-this-year release. This could be an engineer simply thinking ahead for plans that might not play out for a few more major releases. It doesn’t confirm that third-party clock faces are coming with watchOS 5. It does heavily imply that they are on the roadmap, somewhere on the list of todos, and Apple is serious enough about it that engineers are already thinking about how to make it work.