Comments on: iPad May Be Magical. Apps Aren’t. Here’s Why.

By: plugintodan

plugintodan — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:29:39 +0000

It’s like what Arcade Fire did to music videos. Made them relevant again, if only for the short period of time that was its viral life cycle.

By: John Stewart

John Stewart — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:49:26 +0000

There’s no doubt that the iPad – and now iPad 2 – offers companies and developers seemingly endless possibilities. Despite this, and as you mention, companies are only scratching the surface of this device’s potential with the technologies they’re incorporating within their offerings. The iPad provides countless ways of interacting with consumers, such as through augmented reality, swiping, or location-awareness. The problems arise when due to companies’ desire to make their offerings available across various platforms and devices, they sacrifice the native capabilities of the device or tablet. I work for Kony, and one way to overcome this and implement these capabilities is by using a single application definition. This allows companies to generate mobile offerings on multiple OSs and devices (not just iPad) without sacrificing their native capabilities—taking full advantage of each device’s potential and creating a more “magical” user experience.

By: Maximus Williams

Maximus Williams — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:47:44 +0000

It’s the “curse of knowledge”. The more we know something the harder it is to imagine not knowing it. The more familiar a developer is with developing PC applications the more difficult a time they will have creating something that leverages all of the strengths of a tablet.

By: Justin Binder

Justin Binder — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:15:20 +0000

You tell us a lot about what ‘you’ want from an app. That’s the problem, it’s subjective. I’m pretty sick of ‘app culture’.

By: Brendan Lane Larson

Brendan Lane Larson — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:31:25 +0000

Om,

Thanks for writing up your post today. I can’t help but wonder what News Corp. would have done on the iPad if John B. Evans was still with us [1]. In the 1990s John was Rupert Murdoch’s digital media guru and visionary within News Corp., having been appointed by Rupert to run News Electronic Data (NED). John was also a friend of One Laptop’s Nicholas Negroponte. NED was working on some phenomenally creative stuff in the pre-web pre-iOS era namely using General Magic’s technology, Magic Cap and Telescript. For those who think the “cloud” meme is something new, hip and fashionable today, it was very much alive in the General Magic era (we had clouds sketched all over white boards then). I had the rare opportunity to work with John and NED. Like Steve Jobs, John was a creative genius and imagination deficit was not a problem though he and General Magic were a good 15 years ahead of their time. Remember Microsoft’s Bob? Bob was a poor knock off of NED’s Marilyn digital travel agent / avatar [2] (no surprise that Microsoft screwed it up).

Apple played a leading role as a General Magic partner, but the duo creative genius paths of Steve Jobs and John Evans unforutnately didn’t cross because Steve was running NeXT on Chesapeake Bay Drive in Redwood City at the time (at least not what I was aware of — my then business was founded on NeXTSTEP).

If John were around today there’s a good chance he’d have chalked up a killer app or two for the iPad / iPhone (perhaps Android too). Maybe some of the wise and insightful General Magic founders like Andy Hertzfeld and Bill Atkinson still have it in them to revision the magic of the past to the world that has emerged today?

- Brendan Lane Larson

[1] http://www.johnbevans.com/
[2] http://www.johnbevans.com/gallery/album01/photo14

By: Droidfan

Droidfan — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 03:27:11 +0000

Well presented beenyweenies.

By: Daniel Swanson

Daniel Swanson — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:50:05 +0000

So I get the feeling that you didn’t understand MY post.

A bad economy results from a relatively wholesale absence of people doing their jobs. It’s a matter of exchange of valuables–too many checks are cashed while the recipients don’t deliver valuable services (work) or products for them.

Slip-shod app development may produce some income. But apparently too few developers have the insight or dedication or creativity to take their products up at least a few notches before putting them on the market.

They think that no app will sell if it’s priced more than a sawbuck, so why invest in a lot of effort beyond that? This is very backwards, self-defeating logic. Of course, they won’t know if their products will command higher prices unless they put out the extra effort–FIRST. Too big a gamble for the lazy ones.

By: beenyweenies

beenyweenies — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:52:20 +0000

Daniel,

I appreciate your point, but I suspect you only read my opening line and therefore missed my point entirely.

It wasn’t about “the economy” but rather the economics of developing mobile apps. It was a long winded post so it’s my own fault, I suppose.

By: PXLated

PXLated — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 23:33:31 +0000

“timing and luck”
Most successful business people I know attribute a very large percentage of their success to just that – It doesn’t just apply to apps.

By: Harsh K

Harsh K — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 22:52:45 +0000

Hi beenyweenies

Your reply is awesome, almost better than Om’s article itself.

Cheers