iPhone App Review Process

There have been many complaints about Apple's review process for approving third-party iPhone apps. The arguments have been that the process takes too long, it's inconsistent in its approval or disapproval, and they've been accused of nudging out apps that would compete with the phone function.

As reported on the MacCast, some top iPhone app developers are abandoning the platform over their frustrations with the review process. They include Facebook's Joe Hewitt, Second Gear's Justin Williams, and Rogue Amoeba's Paul Kafasis. And some smaller (often times one-man-band) developers who are banking on their app being approved have had their hopes dashes when they receive the denial notification from Apple.

These are all valid arguments for a flawed system, but they pale in comparison to the prospect of an open-platform where one flawed or malicious app could render your iPhone inoperable. Imagine the public outrage that would arise if even a few hundred iPhones were "bricked" because of a third-party app. Stories of iPhones catching fire have swarmed the Internet, despite the fact that occurrences of battery fires are extremely rare (emphasis on "extremely").

Remember that, despite the fact the iPhone has come to be known as a killer smart phone (or app phone), it is a phone. All jokes about AT&T's service aside, when you need to make a phone call you need to have that phone working. If a wonky application or game caused your iPhone not to work, you'd be terribly upset when you're trying to call in to a business conference call.

All things considered, I'd gladly have Apple at the gates, warding off apps that don't pass muster, even if the process is slow or somewhat flawed. The alternative is a potential disaster, of which we don't fully conceive the consequences, because it's only a hypothetical. However, BlackBerry owners -- myself included -- experience this to some degree every time they have to pop the battery out of their device when it crashes.

And to concede on the phone service point, remember ... with AT&T, you never have to say goodbye, because every conversation ends with "hello?"

Out of the (MS) Office

At first, I was very skeptical about cloud computing, specifically word processing and spreadsheets. I couldn't wrap my head around relinquishing access and direct control over my documents to something other than a hard drive that was no more than three feet away. I'm sure you, too, have been burned by server crashes that have wreaked havoc on your Word docs on a shared server. Still, Microsoft Word always kept a local copy that was never more than ten minutes old. To boot, the hacking of Twitter's sensitive Google Docs further justified my apprehension.

However, I'm a realist ... a pragmatist ... and a technologist. But what happens when these attributes conflict, as is the case with trusting cloud computing? First, the realist in me understands that cloud computing / online document management is where things are headed. Why fight it? 'Nuff said. The pragmatist in me knows that cloud computing introduces more points of failure (Internet connection, remote servers, hackers). The technologist in me loves the idea of real-time access to all of my documents, well beyond the benefits of a USB jump drive. Let's face it ... where do you go nowadays that you don't have at least some level of Internet connectivity. (Answer: The one place you'll need that document the most.)

I already do some level of cloud computing with Apple's MobileMe file storage service, but adding the capability to edit and collaborate on documents takes it to a whole new level. That said, I've decided to jump in and start porting my documents over to the cloud where I can both access and edit them from (nearly) everywhere. The big-player options:

• Google Docs. I've used Google Docs before when collaborating on a document or spreadsheet in my work with the ADM to some success. As with all collaboration editing, it gets a little hairy when a lot of people try to edit something. It's like five people trying to make a batch of cookies all at the same time.
• Google Wave. This is really just an expanded implementation of Google Docs, but the principles are the same. Plus, I'm really looking forward to using the collaborative functionality of Wave and its gadgets for work use. However, for personal use, I think I'll stick with the simpler tools.
• Acrobat BuzzWord. It seems like Adobe looked at the mistakes of others before releasing this slick update. They really hit it out of the park with this iteration. BuzzWord maintains the core functionality that's critical to word processing (text, paragraphs, images, etc.) yet made it so elegant and user-friendly. To look at BuzzWord and Google Docs side-by-side, I think one would naturally gravitate towards BuzzWord, if only for its design. With this (and Google Docs), you can create PDFs of your work, which is recommended for delivering a finished, uneditable version of your work. Note: with BuzzWord, you can only export five PDFs for free.
• AjaxWrite. This one can read and write MS Word files and is completely free. In fact, it feels a lot like early versions of MS Word. The two main drawbacks are that it only works in Firefox, and it's a bit slow. I often have to wait for it to load a blank document. Seriously?

For me, the only feasible options are Google Docs (formerly Writely) and Adobe BuzzWord, the former for being more ubiquitous, the latter for being ... well ... cooler. It's a shame that whichever route we go with online word processing, they all feel the need to pay homage to the Microsoft Word mother ship. Hell, I'd love to use Apple's Pages, but who else will be able to open a .pages file? Everyone knows what a Word DOC is.

Update on Friday, November 20, 2009 at 4:47PM by Matthew Snodgrass

Other benefit to plain old desktop-based word processing ... you won't ever get a message like this:

But then again, know that your computer will crash a lot more than Adobe's or Google's.

Business Cards 2.0

Okay, I hate the term "2.0," unless I'm actually dealing with a piece of software that has, in fact, reached its second major build. Moving on ...

Business cards have a long and storied history, dating back to 17th-century France as "visiting cards" or "visite biletes." They were used by the social elite as a means of introduction. Today, they are de rigueur in business introductions. They come in a variety of sizes, shapes, colors, and materials.

I remember making my first set of business cards in the early 90s, printing them out on perforated Avery paper. This meant that it had really gruesome clip-art design and bumpy edges. Then office superstores like OfficeDepot and Staples started offering business cards, which were usually just black text on white card stock. But this time, you got a thousand of them, so you were always assured that you had a healthy stock of at least 950 cards in reserve at any time.

In the heyday of the dot-com boom, I remember getting a business card from a friend of mine who worked at a video postproduction company. They went all out on their business cards with an etched and laser-cut tin business card that had to have cost $4 per card. Needless to say, that company is no longer in business. Today, I'm happy to see that there are online companies like Moo.com that print you custom business cards for around $20 per thousand.

Nowadays, I typically have a post-business-card-exchange routine that I recommend to anyone looking to network.

• Go card crazy. Acquire as many business cards as you can physically hold. There's no downside to collecting business cards from people you don't want to know. Throwing away a business card is tantamount to throwing away a possible business relationship.
• Extra details. Have a pen with you, and write down on that person's card the circumstances under which you met or details about them, including their Twitter handle or blog. You'll need this information later.
• Address Book. Enter that person's information into your address book right away. Use the "notes" section of your address book app to add those extra details you wrote down. Also enter the date and location you met. This is easily forgettable.
• Scan them. If you regularly get a lot of cards, like at a convention, get a card scanner. I prefer the CardScan scanner, although they still don't have a Mac version of the CardScan Personal, so I have to use Parallels.
• LinkedIn. After you've entered their information, find them on LinkedIn and link to them, when appropriate. If you will ever want to LinkIn to them, the day you met is the time to do it. You are still fresh in their memory, and they're more likely to accept your invitation. And do NOT use the boilerplate LinkedIn text for an introduction. Remind them how you met, how much you enjoyed their talk, etc. Make it personalized.
• Follow them. Similarly, find them on other social media, again, where appropriate. Follow them on Twitter, subscribe to their FriendFeed, subscribe to their blog (and comment on it), view their YouTube videos. All of these are very passive and unintrusive. Friending them on Facebook is crossing a business/personal line that you'll need to be sure is safe to cross.
• Stay in touch. This is something I often forget to do. The worst way to build a relationship with someone is to say hi once and then again later only when you need something from them. Keep in touch with them. Just say hi. Comment on their blog post. Retweet them. DM them. Better yet ... call them! What? Pick up a phone?

With regards to your own business cards, a few tips:

• Have them. Always have enough of them with you. Nothing screams "d'oh" like accepting a business card and not being able to reciprocate. In some societies, this would be an insult. Store them everywhere: in your wallet or purse, in your travel bag, computer bag, suitcase, etc.
• Stand out. An interesting shape or design is always a conversation-starter. Our Lippe Taylor business cards are among the best I've seen. It's a square shape with a great design.
• Forget the fax. Put nontraditional information on them. I put my Twitter handle, blog URL, and IM on mine. If I were to have them done again, I'd also add things like Google Voice, Google Wave. Think of how people will want to get in touch with you, and cater to that. NO ONE WANTS TO FAX YOU.

A mentor once gave me a great piece of advice, "Never throw away a business card." Mind you, I do actually throw away the card (in the recycling bin) after I've done the above, but the principle holds true. You never know when or where a business connection will happen, so the larger your contact network, the more likely those connections will happen. It's simple mathematics. 

The Future of Augmented Reality

Yesterday, at Web 2.0, I attended a great panel session on augmented reality hosted by my friend John Havens. There was some lively discussion as the conversation turned from purely technical to philosophical.

Not to get too deep into the technology -- I've already discussed it here -- Funkadelic Advertising's Alex Smith did a write-up of some great examples of AR. Moving onto the philosophical, AR has some amazing potential as a next step into the world of the semantic Web, in which computers are finding and analyzing relevant information for humans rather than humans doing all of that work.

Envision a world where your camera-enabled mobile device -- or even AR-enabled glasses -- see and display additional "layers" of information onto the physical world. Imagine yourself walking down the street; it's approaching noon, and an AR display tells you that it's almost lunchtime and shows you highlighted overlays of eateries that are based on your previous dining habits, your dietary requirements (or limitations), your available checking account balance, and specials that certain restaurants may be running. Or you're on vacation in Disney World, and your AR device plots out the best walking route to see attractions based on their current waiting time, the ages and number of people in your party, proximity to a restroom, and shortest walking distance, all the while timing it so that you wind up near one of their restaurants at just the right time -- with a reservation set, based on your clicked confirmation. You walk through the souvenir shop and merely click on the items you want to buy, via e-commerce-driven virtual overalys, and have those items waiting for you in your hotel room when you return. Or imagine an AR version of HopStop showing you how to get to the Upper East in Manhattan, based not only on where you are but when the next subway car will reach the stop closest to you. If a subway line is delayed, it would reroute you to another subway or bus line that would get you there faster -- and point you there as you walk.

This may seem very "Minority Report" to you, but this is all possible with the right implementation of AR. Mind you, augmented reality, in its basic definition, has been around for a while. The audio device you listen to while on a museum tour is a way of augmenting your reality. This latest form of AR is just taking that to a whole new level.

As the session went on, I raised the issue of AR-app-overload. That is, as more and more services, sites, and marketers develop AR, they would each be creating more and more apps. I know for one, I don't want 47 different AR apps on my iPhone for 47 different uses. I brought up the idea of a consortium (or a big player like Amazon) coming up with an AR standard, whereby multiple clients would use the same AR interface/app. This then raises more challenges like, where would all this AR data be housed (locally? in the cloud?), and more importantly, would there need to then be an AR marker registry? Side note: a "marker" is the physical object -- usually a geometric shape -- that activates and orients the AR experience. In a single-app world, multiple companies would run the risk of using identical or very similar markers, thereby necessitating a marker registry.

This is the dawn of a very interesting technology that hopefully won't go the way of the dodo ... or the Second Life. I'd love to hear your comments. If you're interested, there is an AR Dev Camp that will be hosted near San Francisco and possibly one in New York City, both on December 5.

Update on Friday, November 20, 2009 at 6:26PM by Matthew Snodgrass

Cool implementation of AR for the VOODOO music festival in Louisiana.

TwitterPeek

Twitter seems to have become so popular (despite its leveling-off) that someone’s seen fit to actually create a mobile device that, well, Tweets. It’s the new TwitterPeek. The thing is, that’s all it does.

E-mail? No.
Instant messaging? Nope.
Web browsing? Not here.
Phone calls? Nada. 

Would you pay $99 for yet another device to carry around that ONLY sends Twitter messages? And that’s for only 6 months. After that, it’s another $7.95 per month to use it. Today’s mobile devices are all about consolidation not separation. No need to add this one to your holiday wish list this year.