Pretty bad. In fact, if you’re thinking video, utterly unusable.

Kevin Tofel of GigaOm and JKOnTheRun is someone who isn’t a dyed in the wool iPhone or Apple fan. In fact, he replaced his iPhone with a Nexus One in January (a process that I’ve recently gone through, more of which anon). And that’s why this video over on NewTeeVee of his experience with Flash video should be required watching for anyone who thinks Flash on mobile is a reality, today.

What does this demonstrate? Simply that the idea that Apple could simply magically put Flash on the iPad (which runs a processor in the same class as the Nexus One) is fantasy. Ignoring the broader reasons for Apple wanting to keep Flash off its platform, it’s clear that Flash is simply too processor-intensive to work properly on mobile-class processors as currently specified.

Related posts:

1. Why Apple doesn’t want Flash on iOS
2. And that’s why there will never be Flash on the iPhone
3. ARM’s experience shows why Steve Jobs is right on Flash

Well, it was a nice break. But I think I have unfinished business here.

Stay tuned…

No related posts.

I’ve been writing here for over eight years, and in that time what started out as a simple collection of links and bits and bobs that I  found interesting has mushroomed into something huge. I’ve no idea how many posts.

But I’m tired of it, so I’m effectively closing the site. I’m not taking it down, although I might do at some point in the future. I like the idea of things disappearing from the Internet, because I’ve often been more intrigued by what vanishes than what persists online.

So why? Basically two things. First, this started because my day-to-day job was about technology: Evaluating it, dissecting it, reading its runes and writing about it. The tech industry was my beat, and this site was a reflection of that.Hence the name, of course.

This is no longer true. My day job involves, but isn’t about, technology, and I no longer care about it in the same way that I used to. It’s not something I’m as passionate about, in the abstract, as I used to be. Occasionally, something comes along that I really do find interesting. But all too often my interest comes down to “oh yes, Microsoft tried that in 1995″ or some variant thereof. Been there, done that.

The second reason is more personal, but equally important: this blog – and by extension, me – has become more “influential” than I’m comfortable with. And I don’t like the direction that influence takes me. When what you write has the power to make someone else miserable, and you do it without a second’s thought for the consequences, it’s time to take a step away from the computer. When you start to write because you know other people will pick up what you post – and start to tailor what you write to appeal to that – it’s time to stop.

I’ll still be writing online, of course. I like the clack-clack sound of my fingers on the keyboard far too much to stop that. But not here, and not in the same way that I’ve been doing.

I don’t know what I’ll be writing about, yet – it’s far more likely to be about fashion, design, marketing, words, pictures and nonsense than hardcore technology – but I’ll be writing about it at my new domain (you’ll probably have to wait to find it, as it will take a few hours to propagate around the DNS’s – give it till Sunday). Expect, though, it to be much more personal than here. A better reflection of me, in fact.

(And yes, nerds, I’m using Tumblr rather than WordPress. I’m bored of WordPress. I’m bored of using a “publishing platform” rather than something that just lets me write nonsense.)

You’ll also find me, of course, on Twitter, Facebook, and so on. And, if really want to, you can always IM me, or email me. Old school style!

So, signing off: Thank you all for reading. It’s been fun. Time to do something new.

Related posts:

1. Goodbye Maxim
2. iPhone 2.0: Exchange, or MobileMe, but not both
3. iPhone 2.0: Exchange, or MobileMe, but not both

If you want to understand what happens when you allow the mobile carriers to dictate hardware, look no further than the fate of the Samsung Epic 4G:

“The Galaxy S will eventually hit Verizon rebranded as the ‘Fascinate’, but it won’t have the front-facing camera. Likewise, AT&T will get the phone, rebranded as the ‘Captivate’, but will lose both the front-facing camera and the LED flash.”

If AT&T or Verizon customers want a front facing camera, that’s just tough: they doesn’t want you to have one. Or, in AT&Ts case, an LED flash. You might take too many picture or something.

Apple broke the “carriers define the phones” model. Google tried to follow suit with the Nexus One, but decided that it was better off doing what Verizon told it to in return for major backing for Android. And it’s customers that suffer.

Related posts:

1. Why you should take reports of an iPhone on Verizon with a pinch of salt
2. Idiot post of the day (The Return of TechCrunch edition)
3. Who owns the platform? Adobe? Google?

Remember the story about how Apple was stealing a third-party app developer’s work and patenting it?

At the time, I explained in a long post that the patent was nothing to do with FutureTap’s excellent WhereTo? application. And, after consulting a patent lawyer who managed to get in touch with Apple’s patent lawyers, that’s exactly how it’s panned out. In a post on their blog, FutureTap’s Ortwin Gentz quotes Apple’s senior patent counsel, Anand Sethuraman:

“The patent application in question does not claim as inventive the pictured user interface nor the general concept of an integrated travel services application.  We appreciate your taking time out to discuss the matter and will keep you updated.”

So there you have it. This was a long-way from the “evul Apple!” that many sites went for – but, as I said at the time, this says more about how Apple is currently perceived than its actual behaviour.

Related posts:

1. No, Apple isn’t patenting developers’ work. But it still has a bigger problem
2. Adobe set to sue Apple?
3. Is Apple making progress in the enterprise?

I don’t have enough time to do a long post on Google and Verizon, but I will say this: claiming you’re preserving network neutrality on the Internet by redefining what “Internet” means isn’t going to wash. If “Internet” can be defined as “wired-only” and “not including any random ‘Premium’ services we might think of”, then it’s meaningless.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Not Neutrality: Did Google & Verizon Just Stab The Internet In The Heart? (techcrunch.com)
• Google and Verizon’s net neutrality proposal explained (engadget.com)
• Online reaction: Google, Verizon and net neutrality (guardian.co.uk)

Related posts:

1. Why you should take reports of an iPhone on Verizon with a pinch of salt
2. Why Google TV is doomed to fail
3. Google is not leaving China. So why pretend it is?

UPDATE: I’ve just spoken to Richard, who did me the courtesy of doing something I didn’t – he rang me up.

Richard was, in fact, the victim of some really amazingly shoddy subbing. His original piece included all the correct details of what Apple products can and can’t use – but this was cut out.

This is, in fact, a classic case of two worlds colliding. Online, there’s no need to cut to fit. In print, there is. But it’s also my fault. So, sorry Richard.

Dear Richard Rogers,

Can you spot the elementary error in this one?:

“The company is celebrated for its sleek design and hassle-free software, but there is growing resistance to the ‘closed shop’ nature of its products, the ‘Mac monopoly’ that means users must buy their music through iTunes and that all ‘apps’ must come pre-approved from the Apple store.” [I've made it easy, Richard, but take your time.]

Imagine making this kind of elementary mistake in the motoring section. “BMW’s are highly-rated cars, but you have to purchase all your tyres through BMW”. Can you imagine how much your friends would laugh at you? Can you?

But you wouldn’t actually get the chance to write that in a motoring section, because motoring is a “specialist” bit, while technology, apparently, is thought of by The Observer as “something which we can get any freelancer capable of stringing two words together without making the sub-editors grumble to do”.

Naturally, as I’m a former full-time, professional technology journalist who still does the odd bit of freelance so that I can pretend I’m not really in marketing, you might understand why I find that a little annoying.

(UPDATE: I’ve deleted a bit here, basically because – mea culpa – I got it wrong. I would leave it in, but frankly I’m too pissed off with myself to do so. Will reinstate when I’m not so pissed off)

Here’s a side note to whoever commissioned Richard to write that piece: next time, just get a journalist with a passing acquaintance with technology to write for you. You have plenty of good ones on tap.

But whatever you do, don’t ask a self-described “playwright, poet and freelance journalist whose last play was a one-man adaptation of Hamlet performed at the Camden People’s Theatre in London by the El Mono Theatre Group” to write it. When there are so many good technology journalists out there who need the work, it’s pretty fucking insulting to use someone who’s going to make elementary mistakes of fact.

No related posts.

Because he writes stuff as good as this:

“As for Google? Well, the death of Wave doesn’t matter to Google. They still have their ad business, and their search, and their maps, and their mail, and their mobile OS, and a hundred other projects going on at once.

Is that their problem? Has Google become a bunch of technology spammers? Is their strategy to simply flood the world with as many ideas as possible in the hopes that one or two percent of them will become hits without any further work?

At one end of the Innovation Spectrum, there are the companies that make little novelty lights and fans that plug into your USB port. At the other end are the truly important companies that are willing to eat it for years because they’re certain of two things: that the technology they’ve developed will inevitably redefine its product category or even define a brand new one, and that neither of those things can happen unless a large company is persistent, vocal, and consistent.

It’s a sloppily-defined spectrum and there’s no numerical grading. But with Wednesday’s announcement, I think Google nudged itself closer to the novelty-fan group.”

No related posts.

In search of a headline, Marketing Magazine cites a YouGov survey as showing that the iPad is only “reaching out to the converted“:

“In the two months since the iPad launched in the UK, YouGov has found that 96% of the 713 iPad owners surveyed owned products such as an iPod, iPhone or Mac.”

Why would this be a surprise? Given that Apple utterly dominates the MP3 player category with over 70% market share, it would be a surprise if most people surveyed hadn’t owned an Apple product. When you’ve sold over 225 million music players alone, you’d be hard-pushed to find anyone likely to buy something like the iPad who hasn’t bought an Apple product.

No related posts.

Patents are hard to understand. If any government wants to reduce the costs of running a business quickly and easily, it should revamp the system of patents to make them easy for people who aren’t lawyers to read, and harder to actually get in the first place.

So it’s no surprise that there’s been a massive amount of misreading of Apple’s patent application on “Systems and methods for accessing travel services using a portable electronic device”. What’s made it easier to misread is Apple’s – frankly stupid – use of FutureTap‘s interface for its excellent Where To? application in the descriptive part of the patent. FutureTap, understandably, are miffed because it looks like Apple is trying to steal their ideas.

And the coverage on the back of it follows suit. John Brownlee at Cult of Mac titled his “Apple submits software patent for other developer’s app, including title and design“. Om Malik at GigaOm (probably my favourite tech site) was so astounded by what he thinks Apple is doing he had to preface his post title with “Not a joke“.

What the patent isn’t

However, I think that FutureTap, John and Om have got this one completely wrong, although I can absolutely see why. First, of all, looking at the patent it’s pretty clear that what’s not covered is either the title or the design. Although those are in the diagrams (they really are just the Where To? interface), they’re not covered by the patent. This isn’t, in fact, a design patent at all, as it doesn’t cover the “ornamental design” of the product. Neither is there a claim on copyright of the interface.

What’s worth remembering is that drawings in patent applications are illustrative, not descriptive. That is to say, they illustrate kind of thing the patent is talking about, but don’t form part of what’s claimed. For example, patent illustrations will often include branded products – like a specific kind of car if its an automotive patent – but the specific car isn’t part of the patent claim.

What the patent is

Dig deeper into the patent itself, and it’s actually clear that what Apple is claiming bears almost no relation to the functionality of Where To?. The summary is this:

“This is directed to systems and methods for integrating travel services in a single application available to a portable electronic device. Using the single application, a user can access and control travel services before arriving at the initial location of travel, on arriving at the initial location of travel, during travel, and after travel. Such services can include, for example, reserving a travel itinerary, checking-in remotely for a reservation, providing airport information, providing for social networking, obtaining dining or entertainment during travel, controlling and requesting cabin services, providing arrival notifications to third parties, providing destination location information, and the like.”

What does that actually mean? Basically, what Apple is seeking to patent is software systems consisting of a back end and a GPS-enabled device capable of sending and receiving location data in the context (specifically) of air travel.

These systems then allow a traveler to create an itinerary and access services based on that itinerary as they travel. These services could include electronically unlocking doors of travel service providers (so, for example, giving you access through your iPhone to an executive lounge) or distributing on-the-fly upgrade offers based on location. They would also allow you to automatically check in, by letting a booking system know that you had arrived at an airport.

WhereTo? doesn’t actually do what Apple is describing. It allows you to manually search for services close by, using a really nice interface. But it doesn’t communicate with service providers’ systems, or provide you with location-based offers based on an itinerary. It’s a much more simple system – a really nice app, but absolutely not what Apple is seeking to patent.

The lesson Apple should learn

Reading patents is tough, but there should have been enough information in the summary for the patent for FutureTap to realise that what Apple was claiming wasn’t anything like their software. Of course, they would be understandably anxious about their interface appearing in a patent – and the first lesson that Apple should learn is never, ever include someone else’s software design in a patent, particularly when it’s a valued member of your developer community.

But the traction this story got illustrates another challenge that Apple now faces: automatic mistrust.

In press conference called over the iPhone 4 antenna issue, Steve Jobs said this:

“Apple’s been around for 34 years. Haven’t we earned the credibility and trust from some of the press to give us a little bit of the benefit of the doubt, of our motivations, and the fact that we’re confident we’re going to solve these problems, we’re going to take care of our users?”

The problem is that for some users, and particular the press, the answer is no. Apple hasn’t done enough to be given the benefit of the doubt, to be trusted not to do whatever it needs to do to make a profit.

When sensationalist bullshit sites like Gizmodo jump to the conclusion that Apple is “teh evul”, I wouldn’t lose much sleep over it. If a horde of Slashdot commentors berate Apple for not letting them develop malware and distribute it via the App Store, who, really, cares?

But the fact that smart, rational guys like Om Malik might believe that Apple was simply trying to patent another company’s idea and screw over developers in the most crass way possible should raise some flags at the company. Om is a clever guy, with a lot of perspective – he wouldn’t have run this story unless he thought there was something in it.

And Om is by no means the only one. Talk to the majority of journalists, and they regard Apple somewhere between “to be approached with caution” and “don’t believe a word they say”.

Relearning the fine art of proactive PR

I’d put a lot of the blame for this firmly at the doors of Apple’s marketing and PR policy since the return of Steve Jobs. Essentially, Apple’s PR policy can be summed up as “say as little as you can get away with to the press. Be professional, courteous, but as essentially give away nothing.”

This, of course, contributes to the overall secrecy which, in turn, makes it possible for Apple to do its fantastic event marketing, which makes each product launch something that attracts worldwide coverage. But the flipside is that the relationship between Apple, the press, and other influencers is remarkably shallow. The kind of face-to-face, deep, personal relationships that encourage trust for a company from the media simply isn’t there.

Consider this: Why did it take a major PR foobar like the iPhone 4 antenna for Apple to open up and show off its state of the art antenna design and test labs? This is not, in any way, something that tells you anything about future products – except “they might have antenna”, which I would think anyone could work out. Had Apple shown this off at the iPhone’s launch, with a press tour and techies on hand to talk about how proud they were, the press would have taken the whole iPhone 4 story with a much bigger pinch of salt. Any other technology company in the world would be screaming from the roof tops about it.

This kind of thing is basic, proactive PR – but it appears that basic, proactive PR is just not on the agenda at Apple. Instead, the concept is that the only thing that anyone should care about is the end product. That’s a fine aim, and it avoids the elementary mistake of attempting to use marketing and PR as “lipstick on a pig“. But the problem with it is is that if a deeper story needs telling, you’re forced to tell it reactively, putting you on the back foot and making you look like you’re not in control of the situation.

Related posts:

1. Apple reassures FutureTap: “We’re not making a patent claim on your work”
2. Adobe set to sue Apple?
3. Could Apple’s attitude to developers get any worse?