L’iPad mini mania

Mele e appunti

A pochi giorni dall’introduzione ufficiale dell’iPad mini, non ne posso già più. Non tanto del dispositivo in sé: ci mancherebbe, l’iPad mini è palesemente un buon prodotto. Ben costruito, ben ingegnerizzato, leggero e pratico da maneggiare. Quel che mi sta progressivamente irritando sono le recensioni del solito circolo di geek d’élite, i quali, chi più chi meno, paiono tutti ‘folgorati sulla via di Damasco’. Dopo una manciata di giorni con il nuovo arrivato da 7,9″, molti di loro sembrano pronti a gettare il vecchio iPad dalla finestra, felici di poter usare un dispositivo che, sì, ha dei vantaggi evidenti rispetto al fratello maggiore, ma anche degli svantaggi. Però sembrano tutti d’accordo sul fatto che su quegli svantaggi (come lo schermo non a risoluzione Retina, o le difficoltà d’uso derivate dalle dimensioni più contenute dello schermo stesso) si possa tranquillamente chiudere un occhio.

Il mio compromesso è il migliore

È chiaro che scegliere fra un iPad normale e un iPad mini significa effettuare una scelta fra due compromessi. L’iPad normale è più grande, più pesante, si ricarica più lentamente, è più costoso. Però offre uno schermo favoloso, su cui leggere è un piacere. Le maggiori dimensioni dello schermo permettono una più comoda interazione con gli elementi dell’interfaccia utente, e la combinazione di schermo Retina e dimensioni maggiori è sicuramente benvenuta per chi utilizza applicazioni per creare, specie di disegno e pittura. L’iPad mini ha uno schermo più piccolo e privo (per ora) di una risoluzione Retina, e per alcuni può comunque risultare costoso per quello che offre. D’altra parte, però, è decisamente più maneggevole di un iPad normale, specie con una mano. E, a sentire i geek entusiasti, è molto più portatile dell’iPad ‘classico’. Sulla portabilità faccio un appunto più oltre.

Sostenere che uno di questi compromessi sia ‘migliore’ dell’altro mi pare sciocco, e non è certo nelle mie intenzioni. È il solito ritornello: ognuno ha le proprie esigenze, ognuno faccia ciò che vuole e scelga come pare e piace. Quel che forse trovo irritante in tante recensioni che ho letto, tuttavia, è la prontezza con cui i geek entusiasti sembrano disposti a riscrivere le proprie necessità (per usare una felice espressione di Filippo Corti); la prontezza con cui sembrano disposti a rinunciare a una caratteristica così di alta qualità come uno schermo Retina perché evidentemente l’importante è avere dietro qualcosa di più piccolo e leggero, e a quel paese tutto il resto; la prontezza con cui sembrano dichiarare già da ora che questo è il vero iPad.

Insomma, forse sono io a interpretare scorrettamente l’entusiasmo, ma l’impressione immediata che ne ricavo è che il sottotesto sia Scegliere l’iPad mini è il compromesso migliore.

Sottili incoerenze

E forse lo è. Da quando iPad mini è in commercio, i primi dati di vendita sembrano confermare l’ipotesi di John Gruber, secondo il quale con l’iPad mini si ripete la storia dell’iPod mini della scorsa decade: dopo la sua introduzione nel 2004, infatti, si confermò un prodotto di incredibile successo, che fece decollare sensibilmente le vendite di tutti gli iPod.

Altri sono d’accordo con questa analisi e si uniscono al coro che canta del grande futuro dell’iPad mini. E va benissimo. Anch’io riconosco la forte attrattiva di questo dispositivo, leggero come un Kindle, potente come un iPad. Anch’io sono convinto che avrà un enorme successo e polverizzerà la concorrenza. Ma, citando ancora Corti, sempre dall’articolo linkato poco sopra: 

Perché questa cosa delle dimensioni dello schermo è saltata fuori solo nelle ultime settimane, da quando l’iPad Mini esiste? Perché per tre anni né Gruber, né io, né la maggior parte dei blogger Apple-centrici ha mai detto “mah, pensavo, non picchiatemi eh, forse un iPad da 7 pollici sarebbe migliore, forse Samsung mica è stata stupida, forse è giusto farlo più piccolo. Forse Apple ha sbagliato le dimensioni. Gesù, questo coso è grande”.

Solo oggi, dopo che Apple ha risolto il problema, dopo che Apple ha fatto un iPad mini, tutti improvvisamente lo notano: l’iPad modello king kong — king kong, perché ‘mo improvvisamente è ingestibile da quanto è grande — è meno comodo del 7″. E il consenso è, si può quasi dire, unanime: sostituirebbero tutti l’iPad Mini a quello classico […]

La reazione di Corti è proprio la stessa che ho avuto io di fronte a tutte queste recensioni eccitate per il nuovo giocattolo. È vero, dall’iPod in avanti Apple è stata eccellente nel realizzare prodotti che creassero un bisogno là dove non c’era (o c’era, forse, ma così, timidamente), e immagino che l’entusiasmo verso il piccolo iPad derivi soprattutto dalla sorpresa di chi si trova fra le mani un qualcosa che “accidenti — è proprio delle dimensioni giuste per me!”

È anche vero che tutti questi geek sapientoni, prima che circolassero voci di corridoio di un possibile ‘iPad mini’, non sembravano nemmeno porsi il problema: l’iPad normale va bene così com’è – si, beh, è un po’ pesante da tenere in mano per molte ore, ma lo schermo Retina è fantastico, nessuno della concorrenza ha prodotto un dispositivo così ben fatto e con uno schermo così – e ha ragione Jobs quando dice che un iPad da 7 pollici sarebbe una sciocchezza, e citavano questo suo passaggio, tratto dalla conferenza dell’ottobre 2010 per discutere i risultati finanziari dell’ultimo trimestre:

Si è soliti pensare che uno schermo da 7″ potrebbe offrire il 70% dei benefici di uno schermo da 10″. Purtroppo la realtà è ben diversa. Le misure dello schermo sono in diagonale, per cui uno schermo da 7″ è grande soltanto il 45% dello schermo da 10″ di un iPad. […]

Se prendete un iPad e lo tenete in orientamento verticale, e tracciate una linea immaginaria orizzontale a metà schermo, gli schermi su questi tablet da 7″ sono un po’ più piccoli della metà inferiore del display dell’iPad. Questa dimensione non è sufficiente per creare ottime applicazioni per tablet, a nostro parere. […]

Apple ha svolto numerosi test sulle interfacce utente utente per molti anni, e in quest’ambito sappiamo davvero il fatto nostro. Ci sono dei limiti evidenti a quanto vicino è possibile posizionare fisicamente gli elementi su uno schermo tattile prima che diventi difficile per gli utenti toccarli, farli scorrere o pizzicarli. Questo è uno dei motivi principali per cui riteniamo che 10 pollici per uno schermo sono la dimensione minima necessaria per creare ottime applicazioni per tablet. […]

I tablet da 7″ sono tweeners: troppo grandi per competere con uno smartphone, e troppo piccoli per competere con un iPad. 

Ma poi, ehi, anche i grandi possono sbagliare, e come ebbe a dire Jobs più avanti (concetto ripreso recentemente anche da Jeff Bezos, fondatore e CEO di Amazon) a volte è sensato rivedere le proprie opinioni. Secondo Bezos le persone che vedono giusto con una certa frequenza sono persone spesso disposte a cambiare le proprie opinioni; e non ritiene che la coerenza di pensiero sia una caratteristica particolarmente positiva. (Così riporta Jason Fried di 37 Signals).

E poi, ehi, l’iPad mini non è un tablet da sette pollici, è quasi da otto, e questo cambia molte cose. Eccetera. E lo schermo Retina? Beh, sì, è bello averlo, ma ci vuol poco ad abituarsi a quello del mini (peggiore), dopo un po’ non te ne accorgi, e poi alla maggior parte della gente non importerà comunque. Eccetera. Notare che si sta parlando di una delle caratteristiche più vantate da Apple, prima su iPhone, poi su iPad e Mac, che prima viene usata anche dai geek entusiasti come punto di distinzione dei dispositivi Apple rispetto ai concorrenti — e a ragione. Poi arriva iPad mini e improvvisamente chissenefrega dello schermo Retina, lo schermo del mini è ‘sufficiente’. (Ma noi utenti Apple non eravamo quelli a cui non bastava il ‘sufficiente’ e volevamo il meglio?)

Sembra quasi una gara a chi giustifica di più l’esistenza di iPad mini. Che, ripeto, è un ottimo prodotto e non ha certo bisogno di schiere di ‘blogger pon-pon’, se mi passate l’espressione.

Postilla tutta personale sulla portabilità

È incredibile quanto imperi il relativismo in ambito tecnologico. Ora che c’è l’iPad mini — come nota Corti — l’iPad da 9,7″ improvvisamente diventa enorme, pesante, ingestibile. Il geek entusiasta di turno, Hackett, nella sua recensione scrive “Non mi sono mai sentito a mio agio nell’utilizzare l’iPad fuori dall’ufficio o da casa mia, ma credo che porterò con me molto più spesso questo iPad più piccolo e leggero.“ Liberissimo, per carità, ma al tempo stesso non posso non chiedermi che diamine avesse di così fuori posto l’iPad tradizionale, e se questa non sia, in fondo, un’esagerazione. Capirei se stessimo parlando di portarsi appresso un MacBook Pro o anche Air. Se non si acquistano borse adatte al trasporto, può essere un po’ antipatico infilare il portatile in borsa, e magari si è costretti a scegliere un bagaglio più ingombrante semplicemente per farci stare tutto. Ma non vedo questo enorme problema nel portare con sé un iPad da 9,7”. Certo, il mini è circa 4 centimetri più basso e circa 5 centimetri più stretto, ma un iPad normale è pur sempre più piccolo di un foglio A4, considerando altezza e larghezza. In altre parole, qualsiasi zainetto o borsa in cui è possibile infilare una cartelletta A4 potrà contenere senza problemi un iPad normale. 

Io mi porto dietro il mio iPad di terza generazione ovunque abbia occasione di usarlo, ruolo che prima ricopriva in gran parte il piccolo grande PowerBook G4 da 12″, che fra spessore e la necessità di dover avere con me sempre anche l’alimentatore, a volte mi obbligava a scegliere una borsa a tracolla più voluminosa. Ed è un portatile che pesa due chili, mentre l’iPad classico pesa 650 grammi. Non che abbia problemi a portarmi appresso un portatile da due chili, ma è solo per evidenziare la differenza di pesi e ingombri fra i due dispositivi. Differenza che, nel caso di iPad da 9,7″ e iPad mini, non mi pare poi così radicale. C’è e si sente, non ne dubito, ma non mi sembra sia tale da giustificare reazioni tipo “Aaah, finalmente ho l’iPad mini sempre con me! Prima l’altro iPad era così pesante e ingombrante che mi toccava lasciarlo a casa…”

Per evitare fraintendimenti: ritengo che la portabilità sia una bellissima cosa, ed è ovvio che un iPad mini sia più facile da trasportare di un iPad normale, ma tutta questa recente ossessione per la portabilità a me fa un po’ sorridere. Li vedessi in giro, tutti questi ultra-minimalisti di ritorno, senza il minimo bagaglio, senza scartoffie, con solo un iPhone nella tasca dei jeans e un leggero iPad mini sottobraccio. Quel che vedo, invece, è gente con borse capienti, valigette, zaini, da cui saltano fuori smartphone, macchine digitali, portatili, e‑reader, quadernoni, taccuini, agende e quant’altro. In tutto questo, improvvisamente, sembra che trecento grammi di iPad in più o in meno facciano tutta la differenza.

La differenza fra i due iPad, se mai, si vedrà nei modi di utilizzo. Malgrado quanto sostenga Apple — che l’iPad mini è un iPad a tutti gli effetti, può fare le stesse cose di un iPad pur essendo più piccolo — sono dell’idea che l’iPad mini verrà utilizzato più per attività ‘passive’ come la fruizione di contenuti multimediali (lettura, audio/video, giochi), che non per attività più creative, per le quali un iPad normale con schermo ad alta densità appare la soluzione più adatta. È possibile che anche questo potrà giocare un ruolo decisivo nella scelta di quale iPad acquistare.

Expensive

Tech Life

In his latest article, called Gigabytes, Marco Arment explains the correlation between gigabytes and pricing in today’s tablet scene and how it can manipulate the perception of expensiveness in the eyes of the consumers:

It’s far easier for the Surface to appear to be cheaper than the iPad by starting at 32 GB than by starting at $399.

This is also why the iPad Mini starts at $329 for 16 GB, rather than a cheaper 8 GB model: people said it was only $80 more than the Nexus 7, because they were comparing its price to the $249 16 GB Nexus 7 instead of the $199 8 GB model. A few days ago, Google played the game in the other direction, widening the gap considerably, by doubling the capacities at the same price points. Now, the 16 GB Nexus 7 is $199, making the $329 iPad Mini seem considerably more expensive.

This game works, especially in the downward-price-pressure direction, because consumers and the press overemphasize specs when comparing tech devices. In practical use, though, most people don’t need more than the entry-level capacities. The gigabyte-matching tricks cloud these comparisons, but in reality, the entry-level price is what matters most: it will be advertised most, it will get people into the store, it’s the best value, and it’s the hardest price for the manufacturer to drop because it’s the least profitable.

And concludes:

The Surface is a decent deal, but it is also expensive: not compared to the iPad at the same storage level, but relative to the market. That’s what customers see, and that’s how the Surface will be compared.

There’s another point I wanted to make as regards to (the perception of) expensiveness, which has to do with value and user experience. Perhaps I’m stating the obvious here, but, at least for me, a way to establish whether a device is expensive or not — no matter its price tag — is how much it proves to be useful and how quickly, and how it fares from a user experience standpoint.

In my perception, a device whose user interface is difficult to master, a device whose setup and learning curve get exceedingly time-consuming and ultimately frustrating due to poor design, questionable UI choices, mediocre usability and so forth, such a device is expensive, even if its mere price tag makes it affordable for me. Yes, in simpler terms, it’s how much the device is worth.

I’ll make a probably silly example, to demonstrate that a device doesn’t need to cost hundreds of Euros to prove to be ‘expensive’ or ‘cheap’ (= great value). I own both a Mighty Mouse and a Magic Mouse. The Mighty Mouse cost me 60 Euros, the Magic Mouse 71. You look at the price tag and the Magic Mouse is the most expensive of the two (and is perhaps more expensive than other non-Apple mice in the same league). My user experience with these two mice, however, tells a different story. The only positive thing about the Mighty Mouse for me has been how good it feels in the hand. As for usability and other design choices, it has soon proven to be a bad purchase. First I had to disable all the programmable buttons except the primary (‘left’) and secondary (‘right’) button, to avoid unwanted clicks or calls to Exposé, Spaces, Show Desktop and assorted functions. Then the little scroll ball didn’t take much time to reveal its horribly flawed design: it attracted dirt inside the mouse, was difficult to clean properly, and despite trying all the tricks I found on the Web, I couldn’t get it to work as before. For a while I could scroll downwards but not upwards, leftwards but not rightwards. Frustrating.

I purchased the Magic Mouse as soon as it was available, after trying it at an Apple reseller to check if its slimmer design would cause me trouble when handling it. I was eager to get rid of the Mighty Mouse, and very attracted by the touch gestures the Magic Mouse offered. And the absence of a physical scroll wheel or scroll ball is, for me, the best design idea Apple could implement in a mouse. No moving parts make the mouse consistently reliable over time, and also easier to clean. Two and a half year after its purchase, my Magic Mouse is as good and as functional as new. To those who think that spending 71 Euros on a mouse is too much: it’s not. The Magic Mouse definitely won’t appeal to users who prefer mice with multiple physical buttons, but if you’re okay with its shape, it’s really worth every penny.

Conclusion: the Mighty Mouse has proven to be an expensive mouse, even at the patently affordable price of 60 Euros. I believe it’s not worth the price, considering its design flaws. (Now Apple sells it as the “Apple Mouse” for just 51 Euros, but I still consider it a bad purchase.) Conversely, the experience with the Magic Mouse, its reliability, ease of use and ease of maintenance, all contribute to perceiving this device as a bargain.

Now back to Microsoft’s Surface and the iPad. When Microsoft announced the Surface back in June, I was really intrigued and hoping that Microsoft could propose a fresh, original take on the tablet concept, making the Surface a worthy alternative to the iPad and to other Android tablets. I’ve been reading a lot of different hands-on reviews of the Surface in the past days, and almost everyone seems to agree on one point: great hardware, but disappointing software (and UI, once you start digging deeper). I like the Windows Phone 7 (and 8) UI and I had hoped Windows RT would be as daring, but when I read Jean-Louis Gassée’s impressions in his Tablets Trade-Off and Compromises Monday Note, and see screenshots like the one he posted, it’s clear that under the surface (no pun intended) we’re dealing with good old Windows. Or rather, just old Windows.

And that alone, for me, means inconsistent UI design, frustrating user experience, questionable usability and the like, which in turn translates into too much time wasted to figure out the device in a way that it can be useful to me. Which in turn translates into perceiving the Surface as an expensive device, even if it looks more affordable than an iPad. The question How much does it cost? — especially with devices like these — should really go beyond the mere financial aspect and encompass the experience as a whole. In terms of money, time, personal energies, learning curve, productivity gain, entertainment value, a device may turn out to be way more expensive than it seems at first glance. One more reason to avoid the easy and equally misleading tech specs comparison game.

I’ll keep the 9.7", thanks.

Tech Life

In July, when the iPad mini was still a rumour and when many tech people were praising the Google Nexus 7, I wrote a piece called A 7‑inch iPad? Not for me in which I explained why the smaller form factor doesn’t really appeal to me and how I think that the regular 9.7″ iPad is what I consider a sweet size for a tablet. After the introduction of the iPad mini, and after some reviews have appeared around the Web (my favourites so far: Tim Stevens, Joshua Topolsky, John Gruber), I’ve received a few emails from readers asking me if I changed my mind about it. In the end, the iPad mini is more like an 8″ tablet than a 7″ one.

In July I wrote:

Again, I’m sure a 7″ iPad makes sense for some people. Like netbooks and ‘ultrabooks’ still make sense for some, to the point that they’d choose them over a regular laptop. They hardly make sense to me, simply because they sacrifice usability and a decent user experience just for the sake of mere portability (and price). It’s a trade-off I don’t accept. Similarly, with tablets, I’m certainly not a target user for a 7″ device. I’m sure that, if Apple actually introduces an ‘iPad mini’ later this year, it’ll be a more usable device than any other on the market, but I’m not entirely convinced it’ll retain the same usability as a regular, 9.7″ iPad.

Judging from other people’s reviews and the visual information on Apple’s site, the iPad mini is definitely a more usable device than others in the same league. Apple itself emphasises this aspect with the tag line Every inch an iPad, meaning that the iPad mini isn’t just an afterthought in the iPad line of devices, but delivers a user experience that’s on a par with a regular iPad: Everything you love about iPad — the beautiful screen, fast and fluid performance, FaceTime and iSight cameras, thousands of amazing apps, 10-hour battery life — is everything you’ll love about iPad mini, too. And you can hold it in one hand.

But the real deal-breaker for me is the screen. I’m sorry, but in my opinion once you go retina you don’t look back. I still have to hold an iPad mini in my hands and see for myself, and for now I trust John Gruber’s judgment when he writes:

“Wow, it feels like a Kindle.”

“Ew, the screen is terrible.”

That was my wife’s initial reaction when I handed her the iPad Mini to see what she, an avid daily user of an iPad 3, thought. Her initial reaction matched mine exactly, and perfectly encapsulates the experience. The iPad Mini is not a device you need to spend a lot of time with to understand. My snap reaction from a week ago remains unchanged after a week of daily use.

[…]

The actual iPad Mini display is not terrible. It’s exactly what you think: it feels like an iPhone 3GS display cut to iPad size, including the fact that the pixels seem deeper from the surface of the glass. (It does seem brighter and more vibrant than a 3GS display, perhaps because it uses an IPS panel.) And after a week of using it as my main iPad, the individually discernible pixels are no longer jarring to my eyes. The non-retina resolution is the one and only significant complaint I have with the iPad Mini, and it’s an issue that is only apparent to those of us who already own a nearly-new iPad.

In my household there still are a few non retina devices, like my old iPhone 3G, an iPad 2 and a 1st-generation iPod touch both belonging to my wife. Using these devices every now and then is okay for relatively short sessions. I used to read ebooks on my iPhone 3G with the great Eucalyptus app, definitely a better performer than iBooks under iOS 4. I recall the reading experience on that iPhone’s screen to be bearable, but it vastly improved when I got an iPhone 4 and even more since I’ve used my iPad 3 as my main ebook reader. All because of their retina displays. I picked up the iPhone 3G the other day and launched Eucalyptus to see what I was reading before changing phones, and I honestly asked myself how I could read entire novels on that screen.

The different iPad mini reviews I’ve read so far praise many other features, like the build quality, the lightness, the portability, the feeling of accentuated intimacy an iPad of this size brings, and I can agree that it’s going to sell extremely well also thanks to its solid software ecosystem and to the fact that the overall experience is not dampened or hampered by the smaller size.

At the same time, the iPad mini’s non-retina display isn’t something that can’t be ignored or simply dismissed with a “well, everything else is nice, so that compensates for the lack of retina”. I agree with Federico Viticci when he writes:

I don’t have perfect eyesight, so I got used to Retina displays quickly. I upgraded my iPhone and iPad to Retina without thinking about it twice. LCDs aren’t good for eyesight, but Retina undoubtedly puts less strain on the eyes. This is why I think I won’t be able to adjust to the non-Retina screen of the iPad mini.

And when he tweets:

(1) It is misguided, IMO, to say mass market doesn’t care about Retina. Lots of people I know (non nerds) understand and appreciate high res. (2) We shouldn’t make excuses. It doesn’t have Retina, so it’s a worse display. Period. No “but people don’t care”. (3) This is especially true for people coming from iPhone — think they won’t notice pixels on the display? (4) So we’re pretending a) people don’t care about Retina and b) there are no iPhone users getting one and noticing its lack thereof. Okay. 

Of course, many people will find the iPad mini ‘good enough’ and its lightness, better portability, lower price (compared to a regular iPad) will probably outweigh the one drawback that is the non-retina display, especially those people who haven’t been yet exposed to the beauty of a high-density display. At the same time, I’d love to buy an iPad for my parents, and the mini would be great for its compactness and cost. They haven’t been using any device with high-density display before, but my mum reads a lot, and I know that a retina display would be much better for her eyes, so I’ll probably look for a regular-sized iPad with 3G. (Why not an ebook reader, then? Because the iPad would be perfect for keeping in touch via email and maybe even via VoIP/FaceTime.)

I believe the iPad mini should have had a retina display since day one, although I understand all the manufacturing and performance-related trade-offs behind the scenes. A retina display needs a more powerful graphic processor, which in turn impacts battery life, so perhaps a retina iPad mini at this time would have meant a thicker device without doubt, and we know by now how Apple hates thick. Apple is buying time, releasing an appealing-enough device just in time for the holiday season, while working (I presume) on a second-generation model with retina display which will hopefully retain the same thinness and battery life of the current mini. 

If and when that retina iPad mini comes out, I’ll certainly be much more intrigued and willing to consider a smaller form factor. For now, the bigger 9.7″ third-generation iPad is serving me very well. It may be bulkier and heavier to handle, but reading websites, RSS feeds, books and assorted documentation is a really pleasant experience; an experience I’m not willing to trade for a device with a non-retina display, no matter how smaller, lighter and beautifully manufactured it is.

The Scott Forstall fallout

Handpicked

From inside Apple, the Scott Forstall fallout by Om Malik is one of the most interesting pieces about the recent Apple management reorganisation I’ve read so far. Malik also seems one of the few to mention an aspect I’ve been considering since I heard the news that Forstall has been shown the door:

In conversations, I learned about something that is troubling from a long-term point of view. Unlike in the Jobs era, when the company would ship features when they were ready for primetime, a culture of schedule-driven releases has become commonplace.

The time-based schedule is one of the reasons why Siri and Maps arrived as half-baked products and were met with derision. Many engineers inside Apple could foresee problems with Maps. Why? Because Maps were driven by a time schedule.

Maps and Siri are complex products whose dependencies (for the lack of a better word) go deep into different parts of the phone and even the network. The schedule-driven release culture makes folks less daring — why take arrows in your back for failing to deliver a radical new feature on a pre-dictated time? If this cultural warp continues, Apple might have a bigger headache on its hands. Ive’s appointment as the Human Interface honcho means that more risk-taking needs to come into the products. 

[Emphasis mine]

Both inside and outside Apple, the general feeling regarding Scott Forstall’s departure seems to be some kind of relief. On Twitter I quipped: Forstall might be a moron behind the scenes, but perhaps iOS wouldn’t be where it is without his work. So let’s be a little less snarky, ok?

It appears that Forstall had a bit of an attitude problem, acting like a little Jobs inside his department, not being particularly collaborative towards other departments and executives, etc. In another piece, Om Malik is spot-on about what has possibly been the greatest mistake Forstall made, i.e. forgetting “that he was Steve’s guy, not Steve Jobs.” But attitude apart, I’m wondering where would iOS development be without a demanding figure like Forstall. It’s easy to say “Maybe we would have a better Maps app and a better Siri”, but who knows, maybe we’d still be on iOS 4 for all we know. That’s why I’m really curious to see how the new management will proceed with iOS from now on, what changes they’ll make, what the pace of updates will be, and so on. And Craig Federighi taking care of both iOS and OS X is also a fascinating scenario if you think about the mutual influences of the two operating systems. Interesting times await us indeed. 

In the meantime, I for one would like to thank Forstall for taking iOS where it’s now and wish him the best for his future endeavours.

(Via Daring Fireball)

Apple’s “Let’s Update Everything” event

Tech Life

The presentation

First of all, I really appreciated Apple’s decision to stream the event live. As others have observed, I wish Apple started doing this for every event, not just occasionally. I enjoyed the changeover dynamics between Tim Cook and Phil Schiller, and Cook’s presentation style is starting to grow on me. He looks and sounds like the good-hearted, somewhat shy uncle who has come to tell us a great story nobody else knows. In a few instances he was evidently so excited and overwhelmed as to trip over his own words. I found that endearing. Schiller has once again proven to be a damn fine showman, effortlessly reeling off explanations on design details, manufacturing processes, device specifications and the like. At a certain point, however, I found the pace to be accelerating in a sort of “we’re running out of time” fashion, and from then on some parts of the presentation felt rushed. The 4th-generation iPad was announced and dealt with so quickly that three contacts on Twitter sent me messages like “Hey, what did he say about the regular iPad before introducing the iPad mini?”

The new 13-inch retina MacBook Pro

This is a sweet little machine, undoubtedly. It’s like having a 13-inch ‘Power Air’: it weighs little more than a 13-inch MacBook Air, it’s actually smaller (if you consider width and depth) — though not thinner. On paper, the difference in mass between the two should be negligible when it comes to carrying them around, so I believe the new MacBook Pro can really offer the best of both worlds — portability and power — even if it’s going to be at a price (the entry-level 13-inch retina MacBook Pro costs $500/€500 more than the entry-level 13-inch MacBook Air).

Mac mini

I chuckled at Schiller’s introductory joke: “You knew there’d be something called mini in this presentation.” The Mac mini has received a nice speed bump and upgrade, and remains a very affordable, dependable option for those who want to enter the Apple ecosystem but have limited budget. For only $599/€649 you get a computer with a nice 2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 (Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz) processor, a powerful enough integrated graphic chip, and most of all a lot of versatility connection-wise. The Mac mini has Gigabit Ethernet, Thunderbolt, HDMI, four USB 3 ports, an SDXC card slot and interestingly retains a FireWire 800 port. It’s definitely a nice little desktop machine.

The new iMac

I loved, loved, how Schiller introduced it. It was a ‘wow’ moment similar to the introduction of the iPhone 5. The thinness of the redesigned iMac is by all means stunning, and I admit that for a moment I believed that all the iMac was as thin as that. For a moment I thought: Apple did it, Apple managed to build a computer so thin it doesn’t look real. As you can see from this photo by Ars Technica, the new iMac reaches that incredible 5mm thinness only at the edges, but it’s still an impressive loss of bulk compared with the previous generation. 

The new iMac is probably what blew me away the most in yesterday’s event. It is an engineering and design feat that I find more interesting and exciting than the new iPad mini. As I was following Schiller’s presentation, for the first time in years I started considering this new iMac for my next upgrade instead of a laptop. The last time a desktop Mac was my main machine was during the 1999–2003 period, when I was using a beautiful blueberry slot-loading iMac G3/350. Since a thunderstorm killed it, my main workhorses have been a graphite iBook G3/466, a 12-inch PowerBook G4 and then a 15-inch MacBook Pro. But in recent years I’ve been less mobile than before, and most of the time my MacBook Pro is used as a desktop workstation. I’ve been seriously considering the 13-inch MacBook Air as my next machine for a while, then the introduction of the new 13-inch retina MacBook Pro got me thinking… and this new iMac is making me rethink everything. With it, I’d actually have more free space on my desk, and the current 15-inch MacBook Pro would make a solid second machine. 

I’m intrigued by what Apple calls the Fusion Drive, and if (and when) I upgrade to the new iMac, I’ll definitely choose that as the storage option. As Apple explains on the iMac’s Performance page, Fusion Drive is a breakthrough concept that combines the high storage capacity of a traditional hard drive with the high performance of flash storage. With Fusion Drive in your iMac, disk-intensive tasks — from booting up to launching apps to importing photos — are faster and more efficient. That’s because frequently used items are kept at the ready on speedy flash storage, while infrequently accessed items go to the hard drive. It’s all managed by OS X, so the user doesn’t have to worry about setting up anything.

It would be great that any hybrid drive you choose to put inside a relatively modern Mac (i.e., that can run Mountain Lion) were managed as a ‘Fusion Drive’ by the operating system. It’d be a fantastic upgrade for my current MacBook Pro — I’m still wary of SSD drives and they’re still too expensive considering the limited storage space they offer over a regular HD, but I’ve been considering a hybrid drive as the next upgrade for my MacBook Pro because I feel it can offer the best of both worlds, speed and ample storage space. An intelligent management provided by the operating system itself would be the cherry on the cake.

On a last note, Apple is really putting optical drives behind. When Schiller was illustrating how they got to achieve such thinness in the new iMac, the subtext I felt was: thank god we got rid of that cumbersome thing. Now, if you want a Mac with built-in optical drive, your only choices are the regular, non-retina MacBook Pros — or the Mac Pro, of course.

The 4th-generation iPad

Admittedly, this caught me by surprise. And not in a good way. Let’s be clear on this: I’m not feeling ‘cheated’ or ‘betrayed’ by Apple and I surely won’t get all dramatic over this, but I expected a slightly longer life-cycle for the iPad 3. On a rational level, I perfectly understand Apple’s strategy, and Marco Arment is spot-on about it in his assessment:

The timing of the update — just 6 months after the iPad 3, instead of the usual year — will anger a lot of iPad 3 owners. But the previous March releases of the iPad 2 and 3 were more problematic.

Many people give or receive iPads for the holidays, and their new gifts were one-upped by new models just a few months later. This undoubtedly caused some buyers not to give iPads as holiday gifts, waiting for the new models instead.

Furthermore, there’s much stronger tablet competition from Amazon, Google, and Microsoft now, and they’re all timing their updates for the fall, shortly before the cultural disaster of holiday shopping mania. Keeping the iPad on a spring update schedule would mean that 6‑month-old iPads were competing with brand-new models from everyone else, and everyone else’s models were able to get more press attention without competition from Apple, during the most important buying season of the year.

The iPad 3’s time as the best iPad model was short-lived, and that’s unfortunate for people who bought one and care about having the best, but a fall update schedule will be better in the long run.

I have purchased my iPad 3 in late July, so it basically lasted three months as the best iPad model. Of course it’s still a powerful, fantastic device. Of course I still love it. As I love my iPhone 4, which is still a great device and I have no complaints about it even if it’s not as powerful as a 4S or a 5. The reasons of my feeling disappointed by such an early update cycle for the iPad are entirely personal and I don’t expect other people to feel the same. The fact is, I simply can’t afford to update computers and devices like I change my socks, so my strategy has always been to save money and wait until the device I’m after reaches a mature enough stage as to last the longest possible timeframe. 

That’s why, when it comes to the iPad, I didn’t get the first generation model because it was a “1.0” version, so to speak. I was really close to buying the iPad 2 because at the time the speculation was that it would have sported a retina display, and for my eyesight a retina iPad would have been the perfect solution. When the iPad 2 was introduced, and the display was not retina, I (begrudgingly) decided to wait for the third-generation iPad, and to save more money so that I could buy the 32 GB model instead of the 16 GB one. When the iPad 3 was introduced I thought it would be the moment to finally get it. If I waited a couple months was because I wanted to learn the general reaction by other iPad 3 buyers, if there were problems related to the new high-density display, if there were performance issues or other unwanted surprises, etc. 

Seeing that everything was fine about the iPad 3, I decided to buy it in late July, thinking its life-cycle would last at least until the beginning of 2013. The introduction of the iPad 4 after only six months makes the iPad 3 the shortest-living generation of models (unless Apple introduces an ‘iPad 5’ six months from now, which is unlikely) and, what’s more, makes it a bad investment for me. I can’t help but feel that my $599 iPad 3 is worth less than a $599 iPad 4 which, in all probability, will have a life-cycle of at least one year. That is really the core of the matter for me, even if, in day-to-day usage, I know I’ll be okay with my third-generation iPad’s performance.

The iPad mini

Something new, and nothing new here at the same time. The iPad mini is indeed a nice device which will quickly find its target audience and will sell a handsome number of units. If I were interested in a tablet of that size, I would certainly prefer an iPad mini over a Nexus 7 or Kindle Fire, despite the iPad mini’s premium price. (And I confess I enjoyed Phil Schiller’s comparison between the iPad mini and the Nexus 7 — “that other device” as he called it). The black & slate iPad mini is just lovely. But I very much prefer a 9.7‑inch, retina display iPad. Apple’s tag line for the iPad mini is Every inch an iPad, to emphasise that despite its smaller footprint, its user experience is comparable with what you get when using a regular iPad, but John Gruber’s first impressions confirm my skepticism for a tablet of this size:

[…] It runs iPad apps, but feels like a a “big iPhone” in use. It feels smaller than I expected it to. Having held it, “Mini” now makes sense as the name for it. […]

Screen resolution-wise, it’s exactly what I expected for a 163 PPI display in 2012: noticeably nicer than the 133 PPI iPad 1/2, noticeably worse than the 266 PPI iPad 3/4. The iPad Mini display seems brighter and to have better contrast than the iPhone 3GS display, but unsurprisingly, rendered text looks exactly like it does on the 3GS.

Text-rendering for me is a deal-breaker in a tablet, and at this point, if it doesn’t have a retina display I don’t even look at it, whatever the size.

Like others, I too think that $329 is a strange price, but I like Dan Moren’s perspective: I just assume the extra $29 in the iPad mini’s price accounts for the Lightning cable they include.

I very much like the semi-interactive iPad mini Features page on Apple’s site. Scroll all the way to the bottom and play with iPad mini and Smart Cover’s colour combinations, and don’t miss that little gem of a video. Only Apple can make a video about an accessory with such an elegant, lovely result.

Software: iBooks 3 and iBooks Author 2

Both nice improvements from what I can tell at first glance, but I’d like to spend more time with both applications and maybe write a separate post about them. I definitely agree with Gruber when he writes (see aforementioned link): I can definitely hold [the iPad mini] in one hand, and I wonder if that’s exactly the reason for the new scrolling (as opposed to page-turning) theme in iBooks. (Should make iBooks better on the iPhone, too.)