Wearables: thinking aloud

January 24, 2014
by Riccardo Mori
Tech Life

The latest in smartwatch mockups is Todd Hamilton’s iWatch concept, which is very interesting, and it’s probably the first concept I’ve seen so far that could convince me — if it were a real product — to at least give it a try. What I really like about it is that it’s not an outrageous sci-fi concept, but something that follows Apple’s design style more closely than other visual ideas and mockups I’ve seen on the Web since the iWatch fever broke out.

The current problem with wearables

Both the products currently available and the various concepts that try to anticipate Apple’s take in this category have, in my opinion, one significant flaw: they lack mass appeal. As I hinted in my article Selective enthusiasm, written almost a year ago, current smartwatches and similar wearables are a bit like those calculator wristwatches from the 1980s: cool gadgets for geeks, boring and unstylish contraptions for most regular people. And the fundamental problem of the few stylish proposals I’ve seen so far is that, when you look past appearances, you’re left with a device of limited usefulness.

But the real underlying problem with wearables is, I think, an identity problem.

What should these devices do? Which functions should they have? Should they replace existing objects/devices — and why — or extend their functions — and how? These are very basic questions, I know, but I honestly wonder if manufacturers of current devices have seriously considered them in their rush of being the first to hit the market.

I’m trying to approach this from a user’s perspective — from a regular, down-to-earth user’s perspective, putting down my technology enthusiast’s hat for a moment. And I ask myself:

– Do I want a smartwatch?
Do I want a device on my wrist that essentially tells me the time and sends me a few notifications by connecting/pairing with my smartphone? I already have a nice wristwatch with a timeless design. It looks cool when I’m elegantly dressed and when I’m sporting more casual clothes. Alternatively: I have that great, expensive wristwatch I wear on special occasions where I must dress elegantly, and then I have my everyday cool inexpensive Swatch that’s perfect for my casual style. I have my smartphone, it’s always in my pocket no matter the occasion. Why would I need such smartwatch? It doesn’t do anything really new or interesting. It’s another fairly expensive device I have to care for. It’s too dependent on accessories that I already own and which already work great for me.

– Do I want a full smartphone replacement on a wrist?
Sorry, but I’m already spoiled by big smartphone screens, their user interface, their versatility. And how do I read stuff on this tiny screen? How do I write stuff on this device? And… it’s on my wrist, so one-hand interaction all the time while keeping the forearm at an angle. Any task that takes longer than a minute gets tiring very quickly. And how about battery life? Do I have to charge this thing every few hours? What’s the point? Where’s the convenience?

– Do I want some ‘health monitor/smartwatch/smart-thing’ hybrid?
Here’s the thing: I won’t deny that a wearable sensor that monitors heart rate, blood pressure, blood sugar levels, etc., has a certain usefulness. I also think that, unless you have specific health-related reasons to monitor yourself, having such a wearable monitor that gives you that kind of data in real time all the time only leads to unhealthy obsessions. During the day, blood pressure may rise, heart rate may accelerate or there might be episodes of temporary arrhythmia, and these things happen and they’re not uncommon and in most cases there’s nothing wrong with you. Normally, you don’t even notice. And if you notice that something feels really off, then that’s cause for concern and you don’t really need a wearable device to tell you that. 

Now think of having a device on your wrist that feeds you health-related data constantly. Sure, you certainly won’t spend your day looking at it (I hope), and all that ‘quantified self’ data may even be useful in the long run because you can detect patterns like your average blood pressure steadily increasing during the last month and stuff like that. But most of the time you’ll be obsessing with false alarms and data you can’t reliably read or trust without the help of a doctor (who can provide reasons, analysis, context). 

– Do I want a device that borrows some features from the smartphone and puts them in a more convenient solution I can wear on my arm and check more comfortably?
Maybe. We take our smartphones out of the pocket for simple and complex tasks. Simple tasks include: checking the time (even the date, sometimes), checking notifications, maybe taking a look at the weather for the next hours, reading a text message we received, listening to music, and so on. Complex tasks include: writing an email, searching for something on the Web, taking/editing/sharing a photo, handling appointments and reminders, taking notes, reading news/ebooks/feeds (I consider this a complex task in the sense that it needs a certain screen size for reading and navigating the interface), playing a game, etc.

Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to perform the simpler tasks without having to take the smartphone out every time? That the wearable device could act as a sort of outsourced lock screen/notification centre? The immediate answer would be yes, of course. But consider some of the costs for such (positive but limited) benefit:

  • An additional device to carry around.
  • An additional expense.
  • Yet another device to care for (You have to recharge it, of course, but also protect it from all the accidents that usually happen with wristwatches and other accessories you have on you).
  • A device which is largely optional, a luxury, something that may be cool to have but not exactly compelling per se.

I don’t have solutions

It’s difficult for me to wrap up these observations by offering ideas as to what kind of wearable device should be manufactured or what kind of features this hypothetical wearable device should have for me to want to purchase it. I keep thinking that such a device needs some key technology that’s not fully developed or ready yet. The current offerings are unstylish, uninteresting and unimaginative devices, which appeal only to a niche target of enthusiasts and technophiles.

The challenge to build the ‘right’ wearable is both design- and engineering-related. Certain ideal characteristics seem to interfere with one another: for example, to be comfortable and practical, it should be a small device; but a small device can’t have a too complex UI and retain a good degree of usability (think of Apple’s 6th-generation iPod nano, with its tiny screen and its terrible touch interface — you could do more things on it than on the iPod shuffle, but the more complex UI really suffered from a usability standpoint; while the iPod shuffle has a better, easier-to-use interface, but also simpler). 

Another ideal characteristic could be a long-lasting battery, but again, it’s still hard to produce a small device with great battery life (I’m counting on Apple for this). And another ideal feature could be a Siri-like interface with vocal commands, but such technology still has slow reaction times and intermittent reliability. And so on.

And once the inherent design and engineering challenges are overcome, there’s still the problem of mass appeal. What can this hypothetical wearable device do to make people want to get it as an effective smartphone companion? What can it do or have to make people interested in carrying it with them — on them — all the time, well past the initial novelty rush? It’s the classic “I’ll know it when I see it” situation. 

I’m willing to bet that if Apple decides to enter the market of wearable devices, it will be with a very simple, streamlined device that doesn’t want to solve many problems at once or have a Swiss-army-knife approach, crammed with features for features’ sake. I’m thinking something like the original iPod, disarmingly simple and effective, doing one thing well and kind of uniquely. And once it becomes a commercial hit, expand its features little by little, iteration after iteration.

Anyway, as the title of this piece goes, I’m just thinking aloud about the whole matter and there’s probably something I’m missing. As always, feel free to reach me via email, Twitter, App.Net with ideas and suggestions.

The struggle to overcome what appears as ineffectiveness

January 21, 2014
by Riccardo Mori
Et Cetera

There are two relatively old pieces I keep linking to in the Read Me First section of my home page: Ten years gone and Doing what you love is not enough. I keep them there because I’d really like people to read them, especially those people who land on my site via search engines or by following a link on social networks like Twitter and App.Net and never heard about me before.

I have been writing poetry and fiction since the late 1980s, I’ve been a tech writer roughly since 1998, I’ve been writing online since 2001 and keeping a tech-oriented blog since 2005. I have written all this time both in Italian and English, with periods when one language was more prominent than the other. So, as you can see, I’m not exactly new at this.

In Doing what you love is not enough, published in September 2011, I wrote:

Plainly put, and without taking into account many other things that interest me and I enjoy doing, what I love is writing. Writing here, about technology, design, usability and environs; but most of all I love writing poetry and fiction. Over the years I’ve accumulated a lot of material, mostly in Italian but also in English (especially my recent production). A large part of my œuvre is unpublished, but especially during the 1990s I performed a fair amount of readings and my pieces were powerful enough to attract a small, faithful audience. I submitted some writings to the criticism of a few literature professors at the university I attended, and the general consensus was that I was a promising author (the most direct comment I received was You’re on the right track). So, by combining all these elements, plus the few things I have actually published, plus the fact that I’ve been writing ‘seriously’ since 1987, plus the fact that I am my hardest, strictest critic — well, I feel I have earned the right to call myself a Writer.

I want to stress this point because what I’m trying to say here is that I’m not calling myself a writer just because I keep some blogs and publish posts every now and then. I’m not calling myself a writer in an empty, self-appointed way. Over the years, the selected works I have shared with others — and I mean sharing in the way that predates online social networks — have received very positive criticism and feedback. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing friends who did the right thing when I gave them my writings and asked for their opinion: they never told me what I wanted to hear. They were perceptive and sincere, and always told me what they felt was wrong about my short stories, prose projects or novellas; not just what they had enjoyed. This helped me enormously, made me work harder and harder, revisiting my works, applying corrections and revisions, dismantling and analysing my style, rhythm, choice of words as meticulously as possible. I don’t take writing — creative writing and tech-related writing — lightly and carelessly.

In Ten years gone, published in March 2011, I wrote:

And what about that bitter taste I was mentioning before? Simply put – my biggest frustration is that despite my experience as a writer, despite my expertise in the various matters I usually write about here and in other places, most of what I do remains obscure, not acknowledged, ignored. What’s particularly hurting is witnessing other tech pundits/writers achieving success in a relatively short timespan. Then I go and look at what they do, and discover that some of them write very little original content in their blogs. Most of the time they either link to other people’s stuff with a one-line comment, or just ‘reblog’ and rehash. It’s disheartening. I still haven’t grasped what’s the ingredient of certain successful blogs. On the surface, these people don’t seem to do anything special, nor they seem particularly insightful – they just seem to ‘organise things prettily’.

I know, I know this might sound as nothing more than a whining rant. I know you might think Aw, you’re just jealous, aren’t you? – but really, hold your judgment for a moment and put yourself in my shoes: after all this time and experience, sometimes it’s hard not to sit and wonder aloud: what the fuck am I doing wrong? It’s hard not to ask yourself: Is it the audience? Is it the culture? Is it the quality of what I write? I know it’s not the quality of my writing, because I have indeed received praise for it, both by Italian and English-speaking readers. Is it the fact that I don’t throw every article in other people’s face every time, all the time, as other tech writers seem to do? Is it the fact that I don’t nag my Twitter audience with tweets like “Look at what I’ve done, written, etc.”? In other words, is it because I’m not quite good at ‘selling’ my qualities? I so wish I knew. Meanwhile I’m left with the feeling that no matter what I do, it’s never enough. The feeling of never climbing the ladder, of never rising through the ranks. I know it takes time, dedication and patience. I don’t lack dedication or patience, but time seem to be passing away and nothing really happens.

During 2012 and 2013 I’ve been busy writing here, doing translation work, and giving new life to my creative side by launching a demanding project like Minigrooves, a collection of short stories I started publishing online (twice a week) and whose first cycle I gathered and published as an ebook in the iBookstore.

I’ve been busy consolidating my ‘personal brand’, to use a popular buzzphrase. I’ve been working hard, I have been trying to promote what I do in a way that hopefully hasn’t alienated other people, I have been rather active socially, I have tried to achieve some prominence. Not out of narcissism, vanity or because I woke up one morning and just felt I’m entitled to it. I simply believe that after years of hard work, of personal struggles, of ‘keeping at it’, of not cutting myself much slack; after years of sowing there should be some reaping.

And yet, and yet, more than two years have passed since I wrote the aforementioned articles, and again at times I feel I’m going nowhere. I feel overwhelmed by what appears as ineffectiveness. I ask myself again what is it I’m doing wrong.

Feedback is little. People don’t seem to care (much). My attempts at attracting people’s attention towards this place, my projects and my fiction don’t seem to have long-lasting effects[1]. There’s the occasional spark. The occasional link. The fleeting endorsement. But readers don’t seem to stick, to return. Word of mouth is intermittent, too. By word of mouth I mean “Guys, I think this RM is worth following or is worth keeping in your feeds.” When I find articles worth mentioning, I usually repost/retweet/reblog them. When I find people who I believe are worth adding to my (and your) reading list, I mention them. When I recognise quality work made by other people — a book, an application, a project — I do my best to talk about it, to draw attention to it, to support the effort; at the very least I try to let them know in a way or another. And I do that in the most disinterested manner, it’s never a quid pro quo. I wish I were given the same treatment a bit more often. Is it too much to ask?

[Brief aside: At the same time I keep witnessing the same old story: prominent or rather well-known figures (in the tech sphere, but not only there) who can virtually try anything — a new online project, a book, a new venture — and it appears everyone’s cutting them a lot of slack, giving them plenty of support because, you know, they’re the ‘good guys.’

My auto mechanic is a ‘good guy’ too and he’s very good at what he does. But if he told me he has published a book, or plans to publish one and needs support, I would like to take a look at it before deciding whether to support him or not. And if somebody I already support (because I like what they do) started getting lazy, producing lower-quality stuff, I’d seriously consider stopping such support. We do that with companies when they screw up a product, a service, or both, or make a public-relations faux pas. Why are we so forgiving with people? This indulgence drives those prominent figures to self-indulgence and complacence, while every now and then I believe a little wake-up call is in order to push them again towards that quality they once displayed. End of aside]

Take this rant how you want. Feel free to think of me as a failed writer consumed with envy and having another temper tantrum about life’s unfairness. I only want you to understand my daily struggle, which I’m quite aware is not the most important struggle out there, but it really matters to me. I only want you to understand my frustration and where it comes from. 

And — I could really use your help and support. If you care about what I do, let me know. Most importantly, let others know. If you have suggestions on how to overcome this ineffectiveness, feel free to share your ideas, advice, criticism. If it’s constructive, it’s always welcome. I want to keep getting better at what I do. I want to keep creating things and telling stories other people can enjoy. 

 

 

  • 1. Take Minigrooves, for example. When I published my ebook last July, the news spread fast, and many people (thank you) helped spread it. But such amount of publicity, sadly, hasn’t translated into satisfactory sales numbers. So far, I basically sold a dozen copies of the book. (And I’m not disappointed because I’m not making money out of it, but because I genuinely think a lot of different people could really enjoy my stories.) ↩

 

Permutation Racer

January 20, 2014
by Riccardo Mori
Briefly

From the blog of Big Robot, the developer of Sir, You Are Being Hunted:

In Permutation Racer you race against the clock to reach checkpoints, collecting stars (you can jump, don’t forget) and avoiding barriers or red spikes. Because it’s all mathematically generated, every track is different. This is just a prototype, so it’s very simple, but we think you’ll enjoy it.

Permutation Racer was created by Tom Betts. It’s a free download for Windows and Mac OS X. I’m enjoying it a lot (and the soundtrack is great). I hope you will too.

Casual Podcast #14 — Note supplementari

January 19, 2014
by Riccardo Mori
Mele e appunti

Ci si risente

Recentemente sono stato invitato a partecipare a un’altra puntata di Casual Podcast di Federico Travaini e Diego Petrucci, per parlare soprattutto di come io riesca a continuare a utilizzare in maniera efficace dispositivi considerati ormai obsoleti, e di come questo sia in parte frutto di una scelta consapevole.

Come per la terza puntata, anche in questo caso ho passato un’ora molto piacevole chiacchierando con Federico e Diego, che ringrazio ancora per la gentilezza e l’ospitalità, e spero sarà un’ora piacevole anche per chi ascolta.

La collezione di Mac

Possiedo parecchi Mac, di varie epoche: dai primi compatti (il Mac 128k originale, un Mac SE, un SE/30, un Macintosh Classic e un Macintosh Colour Classic), a vecchi tower come il Quadra 950 e il Power Macintosh 9500/132 (che negli anni Novanta erano bestioni con prestazioni ‘da professionisti’), a portatili come il PowerBook 100 (il primo vero portatile compatto di Apple), il PowerBook Duo 280c e il PowerBook 5300 (anche quest’ultimo, quando uscì nel 1995, fu considerato uno dei portatili più veloci e capaci dell’epoca, e ricordo che nella versione più completa la macchina costava quasi undici milioni delle vecchie Lire). Fra le macchine di annate più recenti: un PowerBook G3/400 “Lombard”, due PowerBook G4 Titanium, due PowerBook G4 aluminium (un 12″ e un 17″), due iBook G3 ‘conchiglione’ e un Power Mac G4 Cube collegato a un bellissimo Apple Cinema Display da 22″ (il modello in policarbonato semitrasparente uscito nel 1999/2000). Il Mac principale, e unico Mac con processore Intel che possiedo, è un MacBook Pro 15″ di metà 2009, con 8 GB di RAM e un hard disk da 500 GB, usato prevalentemente in configurazione da scrivania con un monitor esterno (un LG Flatron W2243S), una tastiera Apple estesa (l’ultimo modello, piatto, non wireless) e un Magic Mouse.

Ovviamente non ho spazio a sufficienza nel mio appartamento per mantenere tutta questa collezione in mostra. Molti dei Mac citati sopra (e l’elenco non è nemmeno completo…) sono conservati in un armadio, ma tutti vengono periodicamente riesumati per controllarne lo stato di salute. Si tratta pur sempre di una collezione. I Mac che tendo a utilizzare maggiormente sono i G3 e i G4, specialmente i due PowerBook aluminium da 12 e 17 pollici, e uno dei due PowerBook Titanium.

Perché vintage

Non ho riascoltato la puntata del podcast nella sua interezza, ma volevo approfondire il discorso alla base della mia scelta di continuare a utilizzare computer e dispositivi considerati obsoleti.

Per tutti i Mac vintage che uso tuttora ogni giorno vale lo stesso assunto di base: da un punto di vista esclusivamente tecnico, sono macchine obsolete, ma non hanno smesso di essere macchine utili. Almeno per me. Ognuno di questi Mac ha caratteristiche che lo rendono ideale per svolgere un determinato compito:

  • Il PowerBook G4 12″, pur non essendo leggero e sottile come un MacBook Air, rimane il portatile più compatto che possiedo, ed è perfetto per quando lavoro fuori casa e non voglio portarmi appresso un bagaglio ingombrante.
  • Il PowerBook G4 17″ ha la stessa risoluzione del mio MacBook Pro 15″ (1440×900), ma in uno schermo fisicamente più grande e, soprattutto, antiriflesso. Per questo lo utilizzo come macchina per la gestione degli archivi fotografici. E visto che il masterizzatore CD/DVD del MacBook Pro è morto da un pezzo, il PowerBook G4 17″ è anche l’unico Mac ad avere un masterizzatore DVD integrato funzionante. (Il PowerBook da 12 pollici ha un’unità combo, che non masterizza DVD).
  • Il PowerBook G4 Titanium contiene alcuni software che non ho modo di installare altrove (come alcuni dizionari tecnici che legano la licenza a una particolare macchina) e tutta una serie di archivi personali che mi è comodo avere su questo Mac. Per non parlare del fatto che, avendo trovato una batteria più nuova di quella che possedeva originariamente, è al momento il portatile Mac con l’autonomia maggiore (quattro ore abbondanti), e quindi lo porto con me quando so che mi dovrò trattenere molto tempo in luoghi privi di prese di corrente a portata di mano.
  • Il PowerBook G3 Lombard, oltre a essere una macchina ergonomicamente ottima per scrivere, ha la peculiarità di essere uno degli ultimi Mac ad avere una porta SCSI di serie. Questa macchina mi è utile quindi per collegare vecchie periferiche SCSI che utilizzo, fra le altre cose, per recuperare dati da supporti obsoleti e trasferirli su supporti attuali.
  • Uno dei due iBook colorati, il G3/300 blueberry, è diventata la mia macchina Mac OS 9. Uso ancora Mac OS 9 per certe applicazioni e giochi che non si comportano bene nell’ambiente Classic sotto Mac OS X (fino a 10.4 Tiger).
  • Il Power Mac G4 Cube, come già accennato nel podcast, è il Mac vintage che più si integra nel mio flusso di lavoro, servendo come macchina gregaria per tenere sott’occhio tutta una serie di informazioni (Feed RSS, altri pannelli aperti in Safari o TenFourFox, ecc.). Utilizzo il Cube e il suo grande monitor da 22″ anche per guardare film in DVD, dato che, come ho già detto, l’unità ottica del MacBook Pro è andata a farsi benedire. Infine al Cube è collegato un vecchio scanner Canon USB il quale, malgrado abbia quasi 12 anni, fa ancora il suo lavoro e va benissimo per effettuare quelle quattro scannerizzazioni settimanali.

 

Il discorso software

Da un punto di vista software, il ricorrere a Mac datati con processore PowerPC su cui gira al massimo Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger o 10.5 Leopard, non è perché queste macchine abbiano programmi migliori o chissà cosa. In un articolo di marzo 2011, lamentando il fatto che Rosetta (un software che permetteva in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard di eseguire vecchie applicazioni PowerPC dentro l’architettura Intel) non sarebbe stato parte dell’allora prossimo Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, scrissi:

Giusto per capirci, non c’entra nulla l’appassionato di Mac vintage che è in me. Non è questione di essere affezionati a un passato che non c’è più, o una reazione capricciosa alla filosofia del ‘guardare sempre avanti’ estremamente caratteristica di Apple dopo il ritorno di Steve Jobs nel 1997–98. È questione di non poter più utilizzare comodamente tutta una serie di applicazioni che a suo tempo ho regolarmente pagato (e non poco), e che non ho mai avuto l’esigenza di aggiornare, perché semplicemente vanno benissimo così. Non sto parlando di vecchi shareware (anche se ve ne sono), ma di software come Adobe Photoshop CS, Adobe Acrobat Professional 6, FileMaker Pro 6, Microsoft Office 2004.

Acquistare versioni aggiornate di quei software è una spesa ingiustificata per l’uso che ne faccio, e al tempo stesso mi trovo a utilizzarli con sufficiente frequenza che non è fattibile (almeno per ora) abbandonarli.

Quei software tornano ancora utili per il mio lavoro, e quindi ha senso avere un paio di Mac PowerPC a cui affidarmi quando ho necessità di utilizzarli.

Una domanda che mi viene spesso rivolta quando spiego che uso ancora Mac d’annata riguarda le prestazioni. “Andranno lentissimi” è la reazione comune, specie di chi si ferma alle pure specifiche tecniche. Il Cube ha un processore G4 a 450 MHz. In quanto a mera potenza di elaborazione, si tenga presente che un iPhone 3GS ha un processore da 833 MHz (rallentato a 600 MHz per questioni di risparmio energetico) — da un confronto del genere, il Cube ne esce teoricamente umiliato. Ma confronti provocatori a parte, come sanno bene gli utenti Mac nuovi e vecchi, le specifiche del processore non sono tutto. È l’esperienza utente l’elemento fondamentale, ossia come reagisce il Mac durante l’uso quotidiano. E qui le cose si fanno forse sorprendenti per chi è arrivato al Mac solo adesso e la sua prima macchina è stata un MacBook Core Duo o Core 2 Duo.

Ovvio, in quei compiti che richiedono una certa potenza di elaborazione, un povero PowerBook G4 o un Cube mostrano immediatamente i loro limiti: fare editing video, per esempio, è puro masochismo. I tempi sono eterni, l’interfaccia è poco reattiva, eccetera. Se invece prendiamo in considerazione applicazioni più leggere, come la gestione della posta elettronica, la navigazione del Web, l’ascoltare musica in iTunes, effettuare semplici operazioni di fotoritocco, consultare e annotare PDF, gestire i feed RSS, e simili attività, non c’è questa grande differenza fra il mio PowerBook G4 12″ del 2004 e il MacBook Pro del 2009 (e, da quel che ho visto, anche Mac più recenti). L’altro giorno notavo anzi come sembrasse quasi più scattante Mail.app sotto Mac OS X 10.4 sul Cube che Mail.app sotto Mavericks sul MacBook Pro…

Riassumendo, per operazioni non particolarmente esose di risorse CPU, le prestazioni di un PowerBook G4 o di un Power Mac G4 Cube sono ancora accettabili. (Mi piacerebbe possedere un Power Mac G5 per inserire un ulteriore elemento di confronto: chi lo possiede mi dice che funziona tuttora molto bene anche per compiti più complessi).

Qualche link di approfondimento

Per finire, a chi trova queste tematiche interessanti, ripropongo una serie di articoli da me scritti in passato che trattano nello specifico alcuni dei Mac e dei dispositivi vintage, come il Newton, che uso ancora oggi.

Apple e Mac:

Newton:

 

Waterlogue

January 16, 2014
by Riccardo Mori
Briefly

Casually mentioned by Joe Cieplinski on App.net a few days ago, I had to check out this new iOS app, Waterlogue, because I was intrigued by the effect it applied on Joe’s photo. After taking a look at the screenshots attached to the app’s description and taking a tour of the app’s website, I was sold. 

Waterlogue transforms any photo or image into a beautiful watercolour. More importantly, the final result has a rather realistic, natural look, unlike many other ‘photo apps with filters’ that end up giving your photos the same gimmicky, artificial feel.

The developer added a thoughtful detail to the app’s description on the App Store, and since my primary iOS devices aren’t the latest and greatest models, this was a very useful bit of information:

Waterlogue runs advanced image processing software for the highest possible quality watercolor rendering. It produces wonderful images on any device that runs iOS 7, but your rendering times will be shorter on newer, faster devices. Below are the processing times for some typical devices:

  • iPhone 5s.…. 10s
  • iPad mini with Retina display.…. 10s
  • iPhone 5.…. 18s
  • iPod touch, 5th generation.…. 31s
  • iPhone 4S.…. 30s
  • iPad 3.…. 22s
  • iPhone 4.…. 92s

 

(Times are in seconds; Processing used example image “West 14th street” at Medium size) 

I’ve been feeding Waterlogue with many different kinds of photos, and I must say that I tend to prefer how it renders landscape shots, photos of objects and still lifes, rather than portraits. But this is purely personal taste, not a specific issue with the app itself, which is really great.

Below you can see a photo I took with Hipstamatic on my iPhone, and two different renderings created by Waterlogue, just to give you an idea of the different watercolour styles you can obtain. If you like to check out more examples of what this nice app can do, the app’s website has a Made with Waterlogue section.