When the very first iPhone arrived, it was a revelation compared to most existing mobile handsets. You didn’t have to endure a painful process in configuring your device, mastering that tiny physical keyboard, and coping with inept user guides to figure out the hard stuff. Indeed, for most of you there wasn’t any hard stuff. It was intuitive enough to get the lay of the land pretty quickly.

Of course, the very first iOS also didn’t have all the features people wanted. It took three major revisions to get us to have cut, copy and paste, and the first iteration of Push Notification was downright frustrating. Suddenly you were stopped in your tracks with a modal dialog that required a click to dismiss. This is the sort of thing that you had to endure in the original Mac OS, and, still, in Microsoft’s Mac applications. The iOS was supposed to be the future.

It took to version 5 for Apple to set things right with those notice prompts, and today’s Notification Center is reasonably user friendly, and not at all obtrusive. Or at least that’s my take on the situation.

Certainly, iPhone and iPad users continue to collect wish lists, the things they hope Apple will ultimately add to the iOS for versions six or seven and beyond.

Now with a traditional desktop personal computer OS, there’s plenty of room to add stuff without making things too complicated, at at least not much more complicated than they already are. I do think the additional gestures for OS X Lion are a bit much, though, and I protest by simply not using them, although I realize Apple is just transferring, in part, what you already discovered with the iOS. This OS unification may help people get up to speed on a Mac in short order if they’re new to the platform, or maybe the things you hate on the iOS will simply make you hate Lion too.

However, the danger on a tiny touchscreen is that there will be so many features, you’ll be frustrated making your fingers do the walking or figuring out the magic tap that enables you to activate them. Indeed, it may well be that we’re already reaching a potential saturation point when it comes to managing text in an email or other text app.

Now when you open a message, double tapping on the content will give you a Copy or Define pop up, which access further functions depending on how they’re used. All right, that’s simple enough to cope with. When you actually enter text, the popup gives you Cut, Copy, Paste, Suggest plus a right arrow. You with me so far? The right arrow offers B/U for bold and underscore, Define, and Quote Level. Click the left arrow to return to the previous menu.

Now I suppose these options are simple enough to grasp with a bit of experimentation. But say Apple wanted to add additional formatting choices, such as different text size, or the ability to use multiple signatures. Would there be another arrow’s worth of options, or would some sort of multiple finger swipe of some sort produce those choices?

I am not an interface designer, and do not intend to become one. I just try to cope and to explain my experiences to my readers in the hope that you’ll find the information useful, or perhaps worthy of future comment.

But I also wonder how far Apple can take a simple interface, dump loads of features on it, and risk confounding iOS users. Have we reached a user friendly plateau yet, or does Apple hope to find yet more finger movement and tapping combos with which to flesh out the iOS even further?

Now having used those other touch-based OS alternatives on occasion, mostly Android-based, I can see where the interface can get ungainly and scattered. But it’s not just what you tap and what fingers you move to accomplish a particular function. Responsiveness is a key element of the iOS that Apple got right with the very first iPhone, and only gets better over time.

With an Android device, the tap may deliver an abrupt response, or none at all. I also noticed this on an Amazon Kindle Fire that was set up in demo mode at a local office supply outlet, and its OS is based on Android 2.2. Dragging things around seemed ragged, and you always felt you were fighting with a reluctant machine, rather than something that did your bidding in a calm, respectful fashion. The friendly interaction between human and machine has always been a goal at Apple. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail, but at least they try.

You get the impression in using competing products that the companies only care about mimicking the features and interface elements as much as they can get away with. And Apple is letting them know by dint of its regular lawsuits that maybe they went too far. But there is something about being a responsive tool or a reluctant tool that challenges the best interface and hardware designers, or at least the ones for companies who care. That is also the difference between Apple and most of their competition.

So as the iOS continues to mature, I hope Apple doesn’t lose focus on the simplicity factor in the goal to add all the features you and I want. I think the danger point is close, and I hope iOS 6 will not take is too far in the wrong direction.

Over the years, I’ve tended to acquire Macs on two-year cycles, since that’s usually how long it takes for the newest model to be substantially faster and more productive than the older machine. The intermediate updates, each year, tend to be far more incremental, although Apple’s upmarket approach version of the iMac, which debuted in late 2009, was a far more significant upgrade. Indeed, the high-end quad-core Intel i7 on an iMac gave a Mac Pro a run for its money.

Although my financial situation had begun to seriously suffer from the recession in 2009, I had the credit line to sustain the purchase of a fairly well equipped and customized 27-inch iMac, with the 2.8GHz Intel i7 and 8GB of RAM. Even better, I sold my Mac Pro and a 30-inch display for enough to actually zero the credit card invoice, and leave me a few hundred dollars change with which to pay other bills. This was a tremendous deal.

After reading the reviews about the new iMac, particularly the benchmarks, it was clear that very few apps would afford the Mac Pro a performance advantage. Sure, I could add more memory to the Mac Pro, and fill the internal PCI slots with some intriguing expansion possibilities, but none of those extras fit into my workflow. But I still felt I was taking a bit of a chance, even though it was one that, in the end, cost me nothing.

Continue Reading…

When Apple was really down in the dumps in the 1990s, their strategy seemed to make no sense. Efforts to build an industrial-strength operating system to replace the aging Mac OS had come up short. There were many Mac models, often with only slight variations, bearing different model names. It got so confusing even company executives had difficulty sorting things out. Consider the failed Performa line for home users, often left catching dust in the rear of an electronics store.

When Steve Jobs slimmed the Mac lineup, and cancelled products and services that hadn’t shown enough potential, you almost felt he made things too simple. Take the iMac. No matter how the configuration changed over the years, it was still the iMac, although these days they are subdivided into a 21.5-inch version and a 27-inch version. There are also different processor configurations, but they are clearly labeled; well, sort of. You still have to explain to people which processors offer such advanced features as hyperthreading, in which a quad-core processor can simulate the function of an eight-core version.

But they are still iMacs.

When it comes to the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro, once again the model differentiators are mostly screen size, followed by different processor and/or storage configurations.

The real confusion comes from differentiating this year’s model from last years. For that, Apple will identify the model year or product generation in parenthesis such as a 27-inch iMac (Late 2009) or an Apple TV (2nd generation). While the form factor of the newest Apple TV is quite different from the original, which closely resembled an AirPort Extreme, you cannot just look at any recent iMac of any screen size and realize which one you have. The display in About This Mac will identify the processor type and speed, but it won’t be exactly clear in which year the product was produced.

At least in the automobile industry, you have a 2012 Honda Accord versus a 2009 Honda Accord. You may not know about the actual differences, and there are modest visual changes, but at least you’ll have some indication of what you’re looking at. Well, maybe. Take the 2011 Honda Accord, which is, except for a minor difference or two, identical to the 2012 model, thus is readily identified without knowing the differences in the VIN, or checking the manufacturer’s label on the inside left door.

But at least the owner of a car will usually know the year in addition to the make and model, particularly if there’s a major style change. But it”s on the registration and insurance card. It’s not as readily apparent on a Mac. If you don’t know what to look for, you will be justifiably confused.

When it comes to the iPhone 4s, it gets more complicated. Yes, there is one model in two colors, each of which is available with storage ranging from 16GB to 64GB. But the model you buy, unless unlocked, will be attached to a specific carrier, such as AT&T, Sprint and Verizon Wireless in the U.S. And don’t forget the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4s, both of which are still being sold to customers who want something relatively cheap. But if you just look at them, you will be thoroughly confused.

At least the newest iPhone is a “world phone,” because it supports both the GSM and CDMA networks. The situation is rather more confusing with the iPad 2, where the 3G version will support one or the other. I suppose Apple will change that setup with the iPad 3, but that’s another story. At present, it means you have 18 iPad 2 choices, nine in each color.

This may all seem a mite complex at first blush, but if you compare Apple’s model lineup to other companies, it’s downright simple.

Take Dell, for example. They divide their personal computers offerings into four separate online stores devoted to home and various business-oriented customers. And I haven’t covered Public Sector. But each department will have loads of barely differentiated models bearing such inscrutable names as Inspiron 15, Inspiron 15R, Inspiron XPS 15, and Inspiron XPS 15z. And I haven’t considered the Alienware lineup, or the business oriented product lines that include the Vostro, Latitude, and Precision Mobile.

Are you ready for a few doses of aspirin yet?

But Dell is just taking a cue from the rest of the electronics industry, where there are loads of models, often with slight differences that aren’t readily apparent in either the model designation and, sometimes, the more detailed product descriptions. When it comes to a Panasonic 3D TV, other than screen size, you have to figure out how an ST30, GT30, VT30, or DT30 differs from each other, except for price. I suppose the more expensive model is meant to be better, but you’d have to compare the specs of one against the other to figure out why. Even then, the visual differences in picture quality may be difficult or impossible to recognize, even for a purist. Indeed, I’ve read reviews where the cheaper model garners a better rating than the more expensive version. Go figure.

As for Apple, there’s talk next year of an expanded iPad lineup, perhaps beginning with this year’s iPad 2, or a slightly refined version, along with the iPad 3. There could, the rumors suggest, even be a smaller screen size, although Steve Jobs said they weren’t very useful. But if the 7-inch Amazon Kindle Fire is making big inroads into the iPad’s market share, I suppose you can never say never.

In the scheme of things, though, Apple’s product lineup isn’t quite as hard to grasp as that of the competition, where model names often mean absolutely nothing.

When Apple was a favorite beleaguered company back in the 1990s, it almost seemed as if the tech media, other than those dedicated to covering Macs for a living, would have been delighted had the company bit the bullet and vanished. After all, Apple was yesterday’s news. Real PC users ran Microsoft Windows.

You have to wonder what might have happened to Apple had Steve Jobs not returned to the company as part of the deal to acquire NeXT. Yes, it brought sorely needed operating system technology onboard, but accepting Jobs as an adviser was the beginning of Apple’s second coming. Otherwise, there would have been no iMac, no Mac OS X, no iPod or any of the consumer electronic gadgets that followed. You’d be using a BlackBerry or Windows Mobile smartphone, and tablets would have been a failed dream from Microsoft.

Even when Steve Jobs was still at the helm, the critics said Apple must be ready to take the big fall. How did they have the temerity to become larger and larger, while other companies struggled to duplicate their success? Besides, aren’t more Android OS smartphones being sold? Surely customers are doing that because they think Android is superior. How could it be otherwise?

After all, Google’s OS is open, Apple is all about walled gardens and control. Don’t customers have the right to choose?

Of course, this is a silly argument. So far as I’m concerned, most customers don’t care about the niceties of open source, curated app stores, and so forth and so on. They do care about the user experience, and the ability to do what they want. And most people aren’t into hacking or jailbreaking their smartphones and tablets. When the media wants to tell us how important extreme abilities to customize one’s smartphone or tablet are to end users, they clearly are speaking to a narrow audience.

Now I suppose I’d be considered a power user, having written loads of articles and a number of books on how to use personal computers and other stuff. I do explore the power user possibilities, but in my own working environment, it’s all about getting work done, not spending endless hours fiddling with the OS. On my iPhone, I haven’t considered jailbreaking, even if that act lets me install Siri on an iPhone 4. When it comes to an iPad 2, my wife has never asked me about installing apps not available in the App Store. It doesn’t cross her mind. But a sampling of two is unimportant in the scheme of things, although I do not regard myself as unusual.

With the passing of Steve Jobs and Tim Cook taking over the top spot, management will, on the surface, be quite different. Even Cook himself admits he’s not a product person, but he is surrounded by the team of brilliant product people assembled by Steve Jobs. You put them all together, I suppose, to make one Steve. Besides, Jobs no doubt green lit new products before he died. Some suggest an Apple high definition TV is front and center, although we only have a quote in his authorized bio to go by to confirm that. Sure, there are some unconfirmed reports about parts being sampled for such a set. But testing a product’s potential isn’t the same as manufacturing.

I also suspect that Apple’s current executive team will very much follow in the footsteps of Steve Jobs for a number of years. There will be points of divergence to be sure, but they all share his goals. When Apple really changes will be when the executives leave or simply retire. As new people are hired, they will bring their own talents, sensibilities, and vision to their jobs. Serious changes are inevitable.

Sure, it will be easy to ask “what would Steve do?” when important decisions are to be made. But that would be the wrong approach to take. It would be backwards looking. They wouldn’t be considering the situation before them, particularly if that situation isn’t something that Jobs would likely have anticipated a few years earlier. Following in one’s footsteps doesn’t mean that person must somehow be cloned.

Where Jobs’ ongoing influence will be felt is 10 or 20 years from now, as new executives and new products are being produced. But it’s clear that Jobs tried hard to build a long-lasting legacy. He very much admired HP and hoped that company would continue to represent the dreams of the founders, instead of flailing about, as they are now, in search of a strategy.

In the best of worlds, Jobs very likely took steps to prevent Apple from falling into HP’s trap. At the same time, there are members of the media who do not believe Apple could possibly succeed without Jobs at the helm. That may have been true while he was here, but if he made the proper preparations, Apple might well live long and prosper for many years to come without losing sight of its goals, of the hopes and dreams about melding art with engineering, of thinking different.