Again, on keyboards and thinness

Tech Life

Addicted to thin

The other day, my friend Alex Roddie pointed me to this article on MacRumors: Apple Patents Switch-Less Force Touch Keyboard, Could Lead to Thinner Macs. Alex’s further comments were: I know Apple patents things all the time, but this one seems particularly ominous. — I think they have an end goal in mind of paper-thin (or completely insubstantial) computers for the sake of fashion. — And the rest of the industry will inevitably copy Apple, as it always has.

There’s a key quote in MacRumors’ article — taken from AppleInsider — that describes the workings of such type of keyboard:

Apple’s current MacBook and Mac accessory lineups employ modified scissor switches, or butterfly switches on the 12-inch Retina MacBook, nestled within hollow key caps. Today’s patent mirrors the aesthetic of existing designs, but deviates from established technology by replacing mechanical switches for a stack of sensors, actuators and supporting circuitry. 

Theoretically the system operates akin to Apple’s Force Touch trackpads, but on a much larger scale; one force sensor package for each keyboard key. Force sensors configured to measure downward pressure are integrated beneath the keyboard’s key caps, while integrated actuators — part of the key stack — generate haptic feedback.

Part of me thinks it’s a fascinating concept. It’s the part of me that loves technology and admires Apple’s ingenuity. The part of me that loves writing, instead, is rather concerned by the direction Apple is taking when it comes to keyboard design. And completely agrees with Roddie’s remarks above.

I’m generally exhausted by Apple’s fixation with thinness. Don’t get me wrong: what they did with the innards of the 12-inch retina MacBook is marvellous: the tiny motherboard, the custom design of the battery’s shape, the keyboard’s butterfly mechanism, all ingenious ideas and solutions. But a force-touch keyboard just seems an unnecessary step too far in a direction that puts design over everything else — functionality, usability, typing comfort.

Perhaps I’m worrying too much. Perhaps Apple’s final design of a force-touch keyboard will be so great that the taptic feedback will be indistinguishable from the usual feedback of a keyboard with moving parts. But if the keyboard in the 12-inch MacBook and the Magic Keyboard are any indication, I don’t think this theoretical force-touch keyboard is going to be a great instrument for writers. It’s probably going to be good enough for people who type occasionally and with a hunt-and-peck typing style. People who are usually comfortable with just using the virtual keyboard on an iPad, for example.

I’m not a professional typist, I don’t use all ten fingers to type — more like 7–8. My fingers don’t strike the key caps all with the same force. I have a rhythm, a cadence, when I type. I need good feedback under my fingertips, I need to feel the keys move, if you know what I mean. I need the key travel. While I like what Apple did with force touch on the MacBook’s trackpad and the new Magic Trackpad, a whole keyboard is a different matter than ‘virtualising’ the mechanical click of a single trackpad button. I don’t like the idea of upgrading to a Mac laptop with an ultrathin, force-touch keyboard, and having to attach an external keyboard (with traditional key mechanisms) simply to be able to ‘write professionally,’ so to speak.

In the design of a keyboard, in my opinion, function and comfort should always trump æsthetics. Flattened keyboards might look cool, but may not be suitable for long writing sessions. Short key travel might reduce stress in the fingers, but in my terrible experience with the 12-inch retina MacBook’s keyboard, it also leads to striking the keys with a bit more force, which in turn is painful for your fingertips. A force-touch keyboard might be a cool-looking solution for the next generation of Mac laptops, yet I can’t help wondering whether the loss of usability is worth the 2–3 millimetres shaved once more for the sake of having absurdly thin machines. ‘Reinventing’ the keyboard in this way to me feels like a case of Not Invented Here syndrome.

I’ll reiterate a point I’ve already made several times now: you can certainly adapt to these new keyboard designs, but a) that doesn’t mean they’re good for typing, and b) it’s certainly easier if you just use the one keyboard on your new Mac. Once you have to use other traditional keyboards, adjusting is certainly more problematic.

Some past Apple keyboard designs for laptops — a brief overview

I’m not a typical Mac user; I own several vintage Macs I still use on a frequent basis, and I often switch keyboard type (and layout). This is, without doubt, the main reason why I’m having a hard time adjusting to less traditional Apple keyboards, why my experience with the 12-inch MacBook’s keyboard was disappointing, and why I’ve found the new Magic Keyboard a bit weird, too.

Here are a few examples of other Apple keyboards I type on. The main takeaway is that Apple keyboard designs have generally been a hit-or-miss affair over the years, but past hits have also generally been better than today’s latest offerings.

PowerBook Duo 280c
PowerBook Duo 280c (1994) — Definitely not a great keyboard. Key travel is okay, but the feedback is terrible and keys feel mushy. You have to exercise more force than the mushy feel suggests, otherwise some keys may not register while typing at a decent speed, and you end up with mssing leters. The spacebar is too small. And that arrow keys arrangement, while more common twenty years ago, was even worse than the one featured in the retina MacBook and Magic Keyboard.

 

PowerBook 1400
PowerBook 1400c/166 (1996–97) — Just a couple of years later, Apple introduces a line of PowerBooks with possibly the best keyboard Apple has even included in a laptop. The PowerBook 1400’s keyboard is simply a joy to type on, it’s the closest we have in a laptop to an external mechanical keyboard. Key travel is right, key cap size and contour are well-balanced, keys are springy and responsive without being too noisy. Too bad it still has that awful arrow keys arrangement. (Even the trackpad button is great, considering the times.)

 

eMate 300
eMate 300 (1997) — The Apple eMate 300’s keyboard is nice. The key caps are smaller than the ones in Mac laptops (the eMate 300 is a smaller device, after all), so there’s always a bit of adjustment when I use this for writing — but the keyboard overall is well designed and is much better than the external Newton Keyboard produced for smaller, handheld Newtons — especially with regard to key feel and feedback. And oh, look, the arrow keys finally sport the ‘inverted T’ design.

 

PowerBook G3
PowerBook G3 “Lombard” (Bronze Keyboard) (1999) — This is one of the Mac laptops I most enjoy using as a writing machine, because it’s a combination of decent keyboard, great palm rest area, and texture of the PowerBook’s top case. I find this keyboard to be a good compromise between the scissor switch mechanism’s typical response and the springiness of certain mechanical keyboards (though this is subjective and your mileage may vary). From this point onward, keyboards in Apple laptops start getting thinner, but key travel is still good.

 

iBook G3
iBook G3/466 SE (FireWire) (2000) — The clamshell iBook was my main Mac for three years, and has been a secondary machine for an even longer period. I’ve typed a lot on this Mac and it’s been a very comfortable experience. Very similar to the PowerBook G3 Lombard, but the iBook’s keyboard, while retaining the same feedback as the PowerBook G3’s, features slightly wider key caps, so it feels even better. The curved lines of the palm rest, and the general sturdiness of the whole iBook, make for a great typing experience when you have to keep the machine on your lap.

 

TiBook
Titanium PowerBook G4 (2001) — Essentially the same keyboard (and the same typing experience) as the PowerBook G3 Lombard and Pismo models. The palm rest area in this PowerBook is flat, which makes typing slightly less comfortable than on the PowerBook G3 and clamshell iBook pictured above. On the other hand, it’s also a wider area, and that mitigates the issue. 

 

PowerBook G4 17
Aluminium PowerBook G4 (17-inch, 1.33GHz) (2003) — This is my favourite keyboard, though I know many will disagree with me. As I wrote previously, “The last truly comfortable keyboard on an Apple laptop is, in my experience, the one featured in the aluminium PowerBook line and the pre-unibody MacBook Pros. The key travel feels right and when you hit a key, there’s a soft, cushioned return that really makes typing for hours a very pleasant and comfortable affair. My main machine from 2004 to mid-2009 has been a 12-inch PowerBook G4, and I still use it as a second machine, especially when I’m out and about and I know that I’m going to write a lot, because my fingers and hands never get tired on its keyboard. […] [A]nother detail that makes the PowerBook’s keys more comfortable is that they’re not flat, but slightly concave — typing on them is more pleasant, but for me also more precise, and I never have to stop and look at the keyboard to find the right key, so to speak.”

 

Except for the PowerBook Duo 280c and the eMate 300, typing on all these keyboards has been, overall, a great experience and a better experience for my fingers, hands, and wrists than typing on more recent Apple keyboards. In some cases — like the PowerBook G3 and the iBook — the shape and design of the laptop’s top case really helps and works in synergy with the keyboard in making the typing experience pleasant. It is precisely the absence of thinness and flatness (of the computer and the keys) that makes typing better. In other cases — like the aluminium PowerBook G4 — despite the top case being flat, the keyboard’s design and feedback are good enough to prevent typing fatigue. (This is especially true on the 12-inch PowerBook G4, whose palm rest area is really small). Some find this keyboard to be too mushy, and in my experience it’s usually people who hunt-and-peck when they type. Exactly those who are now very happy with the latest Apple keyboard designs. For those who type a lot and with more than four fingers, the feeling seems to be the very opposite. 

Perhaps all these keyboard designs weren’t as stylish as the latest flat and thin Apple trend, but they were certainly keyboards that did their job quite well, no matter how long the typing session. And, most importantly, they were keyboards that didn’t need ‘adjusting’. I spent years typing on them and my fingers, hands, wrists are still pain-free and stress-free. Three days typing on a 12-inch retina MacBook, and my fingertips hurt as if I had been tapping on a block of marble.

Colossus — A brief review

Software

About a month ago, when I upgraded to Mac OS X 10.11 El Capitan, I found out that one of my favourite system/network monitoring tool, MenuMeters, was not compatible with the latest version of Mac OS X. I had been using MenuMeters since Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, mostly for monitoring network throughput because my wireless home network has been experiencing periods of high instability. Having the ability to just glance at the menubar and see the network activity and throughput is quite handy, and once you get accustomed to a monitoring tool such as MenuMeters, you can’t fathom being without one.

So I immediately looked for alternatives, and the first two solutions that were recommended to me — as mentioned in my previous article — were iStat Menus 5 by Bjango, and Colossus by Sparkfield. Later mentions included Monity by Lukasz Kulis, and MenuBar Stats 2 by Fabrice Leyne. And finally, I was notified by email that Yuji Tachikawa has written a port of MenuMeters to work under Mac OS X 10.11.

As I wrote previously, I quickly opted for iStat Menus because I’m already familiar with Bjango’s products, and I appreciate the high level of customisation iStat Menus provides. Then, a few days after publishing my article, Saxby Brown at Sparkfield, developer of Colossus, contacted me and kindly provided me with a copy of the app. The least I can do is talking about it a bit more.

I have used Colossus for the past couple of weeks, sometimes instead of iStat Menus, sometimes along with it. I think that Colossus is a very nice application that does its job quite well. If you don’t need all the features and customisation options provided by iStat Menus, you should consider Colossus as a valid and more affordable alternative. Brown said to me: I know that iStat Menus has more features but I tried to keep Colossus clean and simple, and I’d say he’s done a good job in that department.

Colossus can display information about CPU, memory, network, battery and storage. You can customise what kind of information you want displayed on the menubar, and more, by entering the Preferences panel:

Colossus Preferences 1

At the top, in the Menubar Widgets area, you can see a preview of how the widgets you choose will look in the menubar. The Add Widget drop-down menu lets you choose which kind of widget you want on the menubar, and how it should display the data:

Colossus Preferences 2

If you’re feeling minimalist, with Colossus you can even choose to remove all widgets from the menubar, and just have the Dock icon display two different sets of data in a more fuzzy, analogue way. Just choose from the drop-down menus in the Dock Icon area of the Preferences.

One last feature worth noting is Clean Memory, a quick way to free and release unused memory.

Once you have everything set up, no matter which widgets you chose to have in the menubar, when you click on any one of them, you’ll see a comprehensive info window listing all data Colossus is monitoring (see the screenshots on Colossus’ website for an example). 

I’ll say it again, if you’re looking for a solid replacement to MenuMeters that works seamlessly under Mac OS X 10.11, you should definitely check out Colossus.

Colossus is available on the Mac App Store at the very reasonable price of $3.99.

No ‘inverted T’? No thanks

Tech Life

Sometime ago, not long after the 12-inch retina MacBook was released, I had the chance to carry out a thorough test of the machine by using it as intensely as I could over three full days (thanks to a kind soul who graciously lent me the MacBook). I was looking forward to this MacBook as my next Mac, but the experience was disappointing, and the single point of disappointment was the MacBook’s keyboard. As a writer and someone who types a lot and all the time, the keyboard for me is even more important than CPU speed or GPU capabilities or storage capacity. My experience with the MacBook’s keyboard has led me to abandon the idea of considering this machine as a possible candidate for upgrade.

In my ‘First impressions’ article about the MacBook, I wrote:

Finally, another new design choice that I really found off-putting in the new MacBook’s keyboard is the shape of the new arrow keys:

Macbook retina arrow keys

The enlarged left and right arrow keys really screwed up my muscle memory while using the MacBook. I constantly thought I was hitting the Command or the Option key, and I found myself looking at the keyboard more often than I liked. There are some who don’t love the small size of the arrow keys in the usual ‘Inverted T’ design, at least on laptops, but the space above the left and right arrow keys really helps to ‘find’ them without looking, and also helps when you’re quickly moving around a software program’s interface using the arrow keys (positioning an object in a graphics application, moving your character in a game, etc.). I found their new design in the retina MacBook’s keyboard to be too ‘crowded’ and my fingers didn’t move as easily when tapping on them. 

Meanwhile, Apple introduces the Magic Keyboard, which, although it doesn’t feature the same butterfly mechanism of the 12-inch retina MacBook’s keyboard, it has a similar key travel and, most importantly, the same ridiculous design for the arrow keys.

I was glad to read that Brett Terpstra feels the same as I do. In his recent A Magic Mistake, he writes (emphasis his):

I’ll be able to get used to the key profile, eventually, but there’s one thing that’s absolutely killing me: the configuration of the arrow key cluster. The seemingly small change in the size of the left and right arrow keys to full height has made it nearly impossible for me to use.

Wireless Keyboard Before and After

When my right hand travels to the arrow cluster, my index finger feels for the top of the left arrow key, and my middle finger assumes that the down arrow is to the right of it, and the up arrow is above it. This is the way every keyboard I’ve ever used is configured.

With the new key size, when my index finger hits the top edge of the left arrow, my middle finger hits the shift key above almost every time. The ridge between up and down has also decreased, and my fingers are large enough that even if I can feel it, hitting both or the wrong one is happening frequently.

[…] I really want to love this new keyboard, but I’m at a point where I’m not sure it’s going to happen. Arrow keys are kind of important.

Getting used to poor design

Note how many of the people who reviewed the Magic Keyboard, speaking of the arrow keys design, have said something along the lines of Oh well, I’ll get used to it or I’ll adjust to it. Susie Ochs, reviewing the Magic Keyboard for Macworld, writes:

I find the full-size right and left arrows a bit harder to find with my fingers than the half-size arrow keys on my MacBook Air and Wired Keyboard. But I can adjust to that.

Jason Snell, in his review, writes:

The major key differences are the left and right arrow keys, which are now full-sized—I used the empty space around the arrows to orient on the keyboard, so occasionally I find myself completely at sea when typing and my text editor will get xinikerejt xibdyaws. (I’m sure I’ll adjust.)

Of course, what else can you do? Apart from returning the keyboard, there’s no other option than adjusting to the new arrow keys design. I’m absolutely baffled by this change, because it’s simply poor design. It impacts usability, it goes against the majority of keyboards out there, it seems completely unnecessary and arbitrary, something like Let’s fill up all the space because the empty areas above the left/right keys don’t look cool. Something users have to take time and adjust to for no justifiable reason.

I’ve only seen a design like that on small keyboards, like folding Bluetooth keyboards and pre-iPhone smartphones with physical keyboards, where the design of the key arrangement is dictated by the need to save space. On full-size keyboards like the Magic Keyboard and the MacBook keyboard such arrangement is unnecessary. 

You may think I’m making a big deal out of a minor detail. It’s that I utterly dislike arbitrary design impositions such as these. Sure, one may get used to that arrow keys arrangement eventually, but if you — like me — usually type on more than one keyboard, and all the other keyboards you own have the traditional ‘inverted T’ design, good luck getting used to the other design while you switch from the Magic Keyboard to another and back.

When it was just the 12-inch retina MacBook, I thought the new arrow keys design was somehow dictated by a change in the particular manufacturing process for that Mac, but now that the same design has appeared on the Magic Keyboard, I suspect that’s the new direction Apple is going with this, and that when the time comes to fully refresh the MacBook Air and Pro lines, they’ll get this new, questionable ‘innovation’ in their keyboards. I really hope my previous-generation Wireless Apple Keyboard and Wired Apple Keyboard will last for a long time, otherwise I’ll have to use third-party keyboards, or maybe buy other units of older, better designed Apple Keyboards such as my beloved Apple Extended Keyboard II, which for me is still unparalleled for long writing sessions.

Siri’s fuzziness and friction

Handpicked

At the end of Fuzzy User Interfaces, Nick Heer writes:

I implore you to not misread this; this is not a condemnation of Siri, Google Now, or any other contextually-sensitive or “personal assistant”-type software. It’s far better than it ever has been. But it will take continued patience from us and regular, noticeable improvements from the teams building this software for us to feel confident in its abilities.

I have criticised Siri in the past (here, for example), and while I certainly think it’s a useful tool — it may be of great assistance to disabled people, as I have witnessed myself — I have lost all my patience with it. I am multilingual, and I have repeatedly tried to use it in English, Spanish and Italian. The interactions have been mostly disappointing in all three languages. I’ve given Siri another chance every time I read or heard someone point out that ‘Siri has improved’, but it has always been a hit-or-miss scenario. 

I am somewhat reminded of the infamous handwriting recognition of the Newton. There was fuzziness in that, too. The handwriting recognition drastically improved in NewtonOS 2.x as opposed to the truly hit-or-miss recognition when writing on a NewtonOS 1.x device, but with that interface I was more willing to be patient and adapt my handwriting to facilitate recognition because the whole process, despite the bouts of frustration, had less friction overall. Correcting the Newton while you’re writing on it with the stylus isn’t that much different than correcting yourself when you’re writing with a pen on paper and you mis-write or misspell a word. 

Both with the Newton handwriting recognition and the Graffiti system in Palm OS, there’s a bit of training involved. With Graffiti, being a simpler method, you simply learn how to write the shorthand for each letter, number, symbol, and you’re reasonably certain that the Palm device will understand you. After minimal training, I can write on my IBM WorkPad making virtually no errors. With the Newton, things are more complicated, and over time I’ve learnt a few tricks in how I trace the letters so as to significantly reduce recognition errors. Today, 98% of whatever I write (in English) on my Newton MessagePad 2100 is correctly recognised. The fuzziness, the little unpredictability of this pen-based interface, is tolerable. At least it is for me. The advantage is that you reach a point where you’re writing on a Newton device at a speedy pace and in a natural way, and what you write is transcribed and digitised quickly enough.

But with Siri it’s different. Siri’s fuzziness, as an interface, is unacceptable. Siri’s raison d’être is assisting, is being helpful. And indeed, Siri is the kind of interface where, when everything works, there’s a complete lack of friction. But when it does not work, the amount of friction involved rapidly increases: you have to repeat or rephrase the whole request (sometimes more than once), or take the device and correct the written transcription. Both actions are tedious — and defeat the purpose. It’s like having a flesh-and-bone assistant with hearing problems. Furthermore, whatever you do to correct Siri, you’re never quite sure whether your correcting action will have an impact on similar interactions in the future (it doesn’t seem to have one, from my experience). Then, there’s always what I usually consider the crux of the matter when interacting with Siri: the moment my voice request is misunderstood, it’s typically faster for me to carry out the action myself via the device’s Multi-touch interface, rather than repeat or rephrase the request and hope for the best.

I don’t know the details of how Siri works behind the scenes. What would be great, in my opinion, is some kind of initial training, just like with handwriting recognition. In iOS 9, there’s a modicum of training when setting up ‘Hey Siri’. I think it would be interesting to develop a more extended training stage where, for example, you get to repeat certain phrases containing key phonemes, or the most common requests, so that Siri can better ‘understand’ how you talk by associating the sample words and phrases with the speech feedback you provide.

The question I keep returning to when thinking about the current state of Siri, however, is this: Is it worth all the effort on the user’s part? Nick writes:

One of the biggest challenges that the software must overcome in order to become better — where by better I mean can be used with confidence that they will not confuse “two” and “too” in a dictated text message — is that we need to keep using them despite their immaturity. And that’s a big request when they do, indeed, keep confusing “two” and “too”. The amount of times that Siri has butchered everything from text messages to reminders to even the simplest of web searches has noticeably eroded my trust in it.

Siri’s scope is still rather limited. What is the reward for my continued use of this technology despite its immaturity? That sometime in the future it’ll be able to properly write a text message or a reminder? Time is too precious a resource for me to keep trying to have Siri understand simple requests. Not only does the friction in interacting with this particular fuzzy interface have to disappear, but the scope, applications and usefulness of Siri must expand as well — it has to offer enough flexibility and reliability to engage the user. It has to offer more, to provide an advantage over performing the same tasks manually. Otherwise, I think it’s difficult to expect users to invest time and energy in something that still feels non-essential.

Some notable paid iOS podcast apps

Software

We should support developers who work hard to create great iOS apps, and every now and then we should try to avoid encouraging the race to the bottom in app pricing by taking into consideration paid apps instead of free alternatives.

I’ve quickly assembled a list of a few podcast apps that are considered the best in their category. The apps I chose to include are recommended by reviews and user comments you can easily find on the Web. This list is just a starting point and certainly doesn’t pretend to be exhaustive. It’s meant to be used as a quick overview for those who aren’t satisfied by the built-in iOS Podcasts app and want to look for good-quality alternatives that provide more features and flexibility. The ‘Features worth mentioning’ bit is simply a selected subset of those features I consider somewhat unique to the app in question, but bear in mind that there’s a lot of feature overlapping among these apps anyway. The ‘Features worth mentioning’ are taken directly from the App Store description.

If you think I’ve made some glaring omission, feel free to contact me and let me know. (Remember though, it has to be a paid app.)

Downcast

WebsiteApp Store linkMac App Store link

iOS app (universal) is $2.99. It also offers an Apple Watch App.

Features worth mentioning:

  • Browse and download older podcast episodes
  • Settings for auto-download and episode retention
  • Import and export podcast feeds via OPML
  • Import supported audio/video media files
  • Create and edit “smart” playlists
  • iCloud Syncing with other iOS devices or Macs (Requires Downcast for Mac)
    • Podcast subscriptions, Playlists, Settings, Episode information
  • Playback control from external devices
    • Bluetooth devices, Headphone remote controls, Devices connected via Lightning/dock connector
  • Google Cast™ Ready

Requires iOS 7.1 or later

Downcast for OS X is $7.99, and requires OS X 10.10 or later and a 64-bit processor.

Pocket Casts

WebsiteApp Store linkWeb Player

Available for iPhone & iPad, Android, Windows Phone, and also has a Web player.

iOS app (universal) is $3.99

Features worth mentioning:

  • Cross Platform Syncing: Sync your subscriptions, playback and filters between iOS and other mobile devices as well as Pocket Casts Web.
  • Storage: Set how many episodes of a podcast you want to keep. We’ll clean up the rest. News mode added for the contemporaries among us.
  • Filters: Want a list of every unplayed episode? Right here. How about sorting your episodes by custom categories? Done.
  • AirPlay & Chromecast: Cast your episodes straight to your TV with a single tap.

Requires iOS 8.0 or later.

On the website you’ll find direct links to Pocket Casts for Android and Windows Phone.

iCatcher

WebsiteApp Store link

iOS app (universal) is $2.99. It also offers an Apple Watch App.

Features worth mentioning: the staggering amount of features and customisation options the app offers is a feature in itself. Seriously, read the full App Store description.

Requires iOS 6 or later. (Nice if you want to use an old device, like an iPhone 3GS, as podcast player.)

Castro

WebsiteApp Store link

iOS app is $3.99 [Update, November 2015: Now the app is free with patronage options.]

Features worth mentioning:

  • Sleep timer for listening in bed. Still awake when the episode pauses? Just tap play again on the lock screen or headphone remote to extend the sleep timer.
  • Intelligent storage management — you set the size limit and Castro will delete old episodes as necessary to keep within it.
  • Supports streaming and offline playback.
  • Ability to play episodes without subscribing to the podcast.

Requires iOS 7.1 or later.

Pod Wrangler

WebsiteApp Store Link

Technically, the iOS app is free, but offers a $1.99 In-app purchase. It also offers an Apple Watch App. 

From the App Store description: Feed Wrangler subscribers get automatic access to the full feature-set of Pod Wrangler. The app comes standard with ability to subscribe to up to 5 shows. A simple in-app purchase unlocks unlimited subscriptions, removes ads and enables push notifications.

Requires iOS 8.0 or later.

RSSRadio Premium

WebsiteApp Store link

iOS app (universal) is $3.99. It also offers an Apple Watch App.

Features worth mentioning: 

  • Silence removal for downloaded audio podcasts, saves hours per week for the average listener
  • Clearer audio with equaliser, compressor / limiter and volume boosting DSP effects (on video, streaming and downloads)
  • Keep multiple devices in Sync with iCloud or Dropbox
  • Fully supports password protected podcasts, including 1Password support

Requires iOS 7.1 or later.

PodCruncher

WebsiteApp Store link

iOS app is $2.99.

Features worth mentioning:

  • Continuous playback, edit Up Next on the fly
  • Gestures for play/stop, fwd/back, next/previous
  • Adjustable skip intervals for fwd/back buttons
  • Control remotely while driving or exercising
  • AirPlay support, Bluetooth audio and controls

Requires iOS 7.0 or later.