Apple censored an English dictionary.

A dictionary. A reference book. For words contained in all reasonable dictionaries. For words contained in dictionaries that are used every day in elementary school libraries and classrooms.

Apple, a dictionary? Are you insane? Not only should it not have been censored, but it’s ridiculous that it would have required a 17+ rating anyway.

This article is not about Ninjawords, except that it shows how yet another ridiculous rejection makes Apple seem more and more out of control, because it really has no handle on the process whatsoever. With hundreds of apps to review, and pressure from developers who want approval yesterday, they’ve lost control.

People are calling for written app approval guidelines, but it can’t be just that. I’ve seen numerous process breakdowns where the procedures were just fine. A written document only goes so far; the thing must be implemented. Two builders will not construct the same house from the same blueprint. One may be excellent, the other shoddy. It’s about people, too. For example, common sense would not allow app rejection based on a standard dictionary, yet here we are.

Aside from procedures, it’s a lack of control over the personnel. How else to explain similar apps getting in and others not? Or the same app getting in later with no changes? Different folks are interpreting the rules differently, with little oversight, and with varying degrees of “customer service.” (Here’s a hint, Apple: When a developer is trying to get their app approved, they’re your customer. Treat them like one.)

So what can Apple do? There’s no silver bullet to address this — we’ll see more silly rejections before this gets better — but Apple must act fast, because it’s falling apart. Personally, I think it’s time Apple personel had a meeting like they did after the MobileMe rollout debacle. I don’t know when or where that meeting took place, but I’ll bet it wasn’t pretty. It was probably downright ugly, but it was necessary.

Just like that screwup, these problems can’t be fixed in a week or two, so Apple shouldn’t try to pretend it can. When it came clean with MobileMe, Apple said it would take four months to make it a service it could be proud of. We need a realistic ETA for the App Store as well. Apple must perform whatever management shakeup/changes are necessary, communicate them to the user base and development community, and then start getting it done. Apple is just embarrassing itself.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide
• Report: Monetizing Digital Content

As more and more households have multiple PCs, the idea of a “family pack” (i.e., a piece of software with multiple licenses for use) makes a lot of sense. Since Apple and Microsoft are set to release new versions of their respective operating systems this fall (Apple’s Snow Leopard in September, Microsoft’s Windows 7 in October), let’s look at the family pack available for each.

Microsoft

Microsoft finally ended all rumors of a Windows 7 Family Pack, announcing that there would indeed be such a product:

The Windows 7 Family Pack will be available starting on October 22 until supplies last here in the U.S. and other select markets. In the U.S., the price for the Windows 7 Family Pack will be $149.99 for three Windows 7 Home Premium licenses.

It’s not that paying $150 for three licenses is a bad deal, it’s just that the paragraph above pretty much constitutes the entire announcement, which is bad because…

• Where is the Family Pack for Professional? What about Ultimate? Sadly, there is no such thing. Why isn’t Microsoft making its other OS editions available in similar “family friendly” offerings?
• It’s only for a limited time (“until supplies last”). This is a software product on disc that comes with a three-user license, there are no “supplies.” The only thing that can run out is Microsoft’s willingness to provide this value to the consumer.

So Microsoft will thwart consumers who desire Professional or Ultimate by requiring full licenses even if they want to run it on all the PCs in their home. This is practically an engraved invitation to pirate the software.

Further, after some as-yet-unnamed amount of time, the Home Premium deal will be withdrawn. Perhaps this is just a maneuver to juice up early interest and sales for PR purposes, and once they can report large numbers of licenses sold they’ll just end the deal.

Apple

Apple’s upcoming Snow Leopard will be sold in family packs of five licenses for $49. This is a better deal than Microsoft’s in many ways:

• Obviously, $50 for five license is much better than $150 for three.
• Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn’t offer “crippled” editions. Their family pack will consist of the full (“Ultimate”, to use Microsoft’s term) version of Snow Leopard.
• There is no expiration date on availability.

Aside from its OS, Apple also offers family packs for their iLife and iWork suites that are incredible values.

Conclusion

While I’m not suggesting upgrade pricing alone would be a reason to switch to a Mac, I do believe Apple’s family packs (which are not new) are an impressive, and important, value. I consider them part of the Apple value equation; a computer is a combination of hardware and software, not just one or the other.

I think Apple’s philosophy on family packs is clear. Put simply, they take the sting out of wanting to run multiple licenses for multiple machines. They provide such an excellent value, the consumer has little issue with legitimizing multiple software copies in their home.

For Microsoft, this is new territory. I’m glad to see there was some truth to the earlier rumors, but it all falls short. While the family pack for Windows 7 is a smart move, Microsoft is misguided to limit it to just the “cheap” edition and to make the offer short-term. Indeed, why not encourage people to legitimize multiple copies, and up-sell Professional, by offering a family pack at the high-end? If the goal was to limit piracy, I believe it will have only a minimal impact there.

Nonetheless, if your decision to use Windows 7 is already made, and Home Premium is what you desire, then I’d certainly recommend snapping up the family pack before Microsoft changes its mind.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview
• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast

Those new ultra-thin PCs, the first of which will be coming later this year and, presumably running Windows 7, won’t be as cheap as $299 or $399 netbooks, Ballmer admitted, but they will combine netbooks’ portability, with some unnamed but higher-sounding prices.

Though the MacBook Air won’t be running Windows 7 any time soon, the rest of the quote is a pretty good description of it. Ballmer had earlier defined this “new” class of PC when speaking at the kick-off presentation for Microsoft’s Financial Analyst Meeting:

Ballmer told analysts there would be a new class of “ultra-thin” PCs” — or high-end netbooks –coming this year that would combine the light weight of netbooks with high-power and high-performance of traditional PCs.

Yep, that’s the MacBook Air alright.

When the Air was introduced, Steve Jobs first outlined these three problems (compromises) with netbooks:

• Small screens
• Tiny keyboard
• Low processing power

The MacBook Air went on to address them all. And it did so as a “high-end” model for a “higher-sounding” price, exactly as Ballmer is predicting will not appear until “later this year.”

Will Ballmer’s bad track record seal the MacBook Air’s fate? Or will this particular “prediction,” which is of the past, and tantamount to predicting yesterday’s sunrise, be an isolated case of him being correct?

I guess only time will tell if the MacBook Air is truly finished.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: The Future of Netbooks!
• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview

• People want to learn how to write programs on the Mac
• People don’t want to learn how to use programs on the Mac (or PC, for that matter)

The latter is especially interesting to me. Though my time in support taught me well about RTFM syndrome, there were always certain people interested in learning to use software to its fullest. This group understood that reviewing documentation was likely the best way to do that.

But expectations have changed. Usage should now be obvious or a lot of people won’t bother. I don’t mind the expectation that a manual shouldn’t be required to start using software right away. In fact, I like that attitude because developers must now give more care to their user interfaces. However, even in the best interfaces there are limits.

For my own usage, I bought an iWork 08 book to get a better feel for that suite of programs. Additionally, I downloaded a lengthy third-party Aperture guide to understand the various tools better.

I’m curious, at what point have you crossed the threshold, and either studied the full documentation or bought a supplemental book to learn a program in more depth?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

Truth be told, if NPD really stated this as market share, I’d say they were wrong. It’s hard to believe 9.1 out of 10 PCs over $1K are Apple’s. Come on, people, there are many non-Mac users who spend money, too. Whether for quality, style, or higher-end components, not everyone who gets a PC is a Laptop Hunter. I’ve never bought a Windows machine for under $1K in my life, and I’ve had many.

It doesn’t take much to refute the market share angle. I don’t agree with the article using just Best Buy as a point of comparison, but it’s still not hard to believe there’s no such ratio of Macs to PCs at the high-end.

But if not market share, what is NPD talking about? Let’s look at this as reported by Joe Wilcox (with a headline as misleading as the others):

According to NPD, in June, nine out of 10 dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more went to Apple.

Nine out of 10 dollars went to Apple? That’s a different beast than market share. It’s revenue share, and a lot more believable.

Consider the example where two people go to a Best Buy. One buys a PC for $1,045, the other a Mac for $1,455. At this point the Mac and PC market share is equal (one each, 50 percent). But now let’s look at the “dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more”, which total $500. PC got $45 (9 percent), while Mac got $455 (91 percent).

Is it believable that Macs, with an Average Selling Price of $1,400 in June, could hold that kind of ratio against PCs with an ASP of $515 the same month? I believe so.

Honestly, though, this is one of those statistics that sounds cool, but doesn’t really tell us much. By picking an arbitrary cutoff ($1K) it’s statistical juggling. What if the Mac cost $1,200 to make, and the PC $800? Apple would have that flashy 91 percent number, but only net 10 more bucks than the PC from the deal.

Which brings me to what matters. Ultimately, it’s about profits. Units sold, share of this category or that, supposed web usage figures by tracking browsers, etc., all make for interesting headlines. But where is the money? Microsoft and PC vendors have made plenty in the past despite their lower ASPs. They simply sell a lot more boxes (Apple is still under 4 percent globally). That’s why, to me, the real story this week is Apple’s stellar earnings report from Wednesday compared to Microsoft’s dismal results from Thursday. That’s more revealing than a 91 percent share of anything.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview
• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast

It must be nice to be Verizon right now. Free from the intense scrutiny AT&T receives by having the hottest and “smartest” smartphone, it can appear to rise above it all. It can have TV ads to claim the best network on the planet, and it’s done. It can have legions of people claiming they’d drop AT&T in a heartbeat, or snap up an iPhone tomorrow, if only it could be on its network.

Even setting aside that the iPhone on Verizon would not likely be the iPhone we recognize, this is ridiculous.

Before we get into it, let me first say that if you live where there’s little or no AT&T coverage, then obviously Verizon or another carrier is what you need. But every carrier has holes in its coverage. Every. One. This article isn’t about that.

No, what this article is about are those places (and there are many) where either carrier is an option. In that case, there are general perceptions where Verizon seems to either have people fooled, or it’s no different than AT&T but it isn’t noticed.

• It must be nice to sell phones with less usability than the iPhone so your customers don’t hammer your network, and then sit back and let people assume you could handle the load under which AT&T is straining.
• It must be nice to utilize the same pricing and subsidy strategies as AT&T, but get to remain above the fray while AT&T takes the heat for what the whole industry is doing.
• It must be nice to charge for carrier cash cows like SMS and tethering, but have everybody only complain about AT&T doing it.
• It must be nice to brag about having visual voice mail on some phones, while quietly hiding that it’s an extra $3 a month.
• It must be nice to not allow convenient syncing of data, media, bookmarks, etc., via the excellent iTunes environment, instead using clumsier tools if anything is allowed at all, and have your customers just take it in stride.
• It must be nice to disable hardware features on many phones, such as Bluetooth, GPS, and Wi-Fi, with little complaint from the masses.
• It must be nice to avoid GSM, still using CDMA-based technology that the rest of the world (and AT&T) has abandoned. Its rollout to a 4G network could come with headaches as a result.
• It must be nice to brag about 3G speeds, and have no one point out that your CDMA 3G technology (EV-DO) can handle voice or data, but not both simultaneously. Browsing the web when a call comes in? You can have the call or the web, not both. Oops.

If Verizon received even half the scrutiny AT&T does, it’d be buried with criticism. If AT&T is getting a lot of bad press, Verizon would be ripped to shreds. But since it doesn’t offer a phone that’s particularly compelling, one that taxes its network, one that people actually want to use, few have bothered to look beyond the geek with the glasses it puts on TV. It must be nice.

Finally, this in not intended as a defense of AT&T, and in no way excuses it from legitimate complaints. I’ve certainly grown tired of all that company’s talk, but no action. However, the idea that Verizon would somehow be free from all these complaints — even assuming it allowed the iPhone as is — is not supported by its own actions. As a U.S. carrier it has far more in common with AT&T than people seem to realize.

I was a Verizon customer for years prior to switching for an iPhone over two years ago. The “Verizon envy” many AT&T customers possess is akin to the grass always being greener on the other side. Problem is, most of you would find out it’s crabgrass.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

Aside from Microsoft, consider these other examples:

• The Mac wasn’t invited to the Quicken launch party, but isn’t it nice of Intuit to throw it some crumbs next year?
• The Mac wasn’t invited to the Google Chrome launch party. But it’s OK, because Sergey Brin said it was “embarrassing.” Right. As if Google just forgot about the Mac, and was blushing about it. It wasn’t embarrassing, it was planned; don’t insult us by acting like it was some sort of mistake.
• The Mac wasn’t invited to the Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 or 6.0 launch parties. In fact, the 5.0 party was completely canceled for the Mac.

The above are just some of the Big Boys who operate “business as usual.” There are plenty of examples in the smaller development houses as well.

I know Windows has the commanding market share and user base in the PC world. I understand why you’d choose Windows if you just wanted to write for one platform. I have zero problem with this. However, I do take issue with vendors that support both platforms still spitting out one after the other instead of twin releases.

Don’t tell me it’s a resource issue; I see Apple do it all the time. Ever notice Safari comes out on both platforms at once now? As does iTunes, and QuickTime. Sure, Apple must cater to the larger Windows user base while not ignoring its own, but my point is Apple is proof you can release to both platforms simultaneously. Other vendors don’t do this because they don’t care enough about the Mac to change their ways, not because it can’t be done. Much like Mr. Brin, they’ll pay lip service to the Mac, but I’d prefer to judge them by their actions.

Any time Mac users get to thinking that Apple’s great success the last dozen years has changed how developers view the Mac, it hasn’t. Twelve years ago it was seen as a tiny percentage of PC users (maybe 2.5 percent globally). Today, it’s still seen as a tiny percentage of PC users (maybe 4 percent). True enough, so the Mac sits last in line despite the BS from various vendors. The only thing that’s really changed is how developers talk about the Mac.

The Mac user base used to be a lot more vocal about this. I’m not sure why it has gotten so quiet lately.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

“What’s interesting about the iPhone is [that] the capability of the device is tremendous,” he added. “We’re looking closely at it. There are a lot of people in IT who play around with it. So I wouldn’t say we have our heads in the sand. And as Apple catches up on the centralized management issues, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that we would replace BlackBerrys with iPhones, or add iPhones to the mix.”

I like the quote because it’s realistic. If you’re rolling thousands of these things out, then RIM is ahead of the curve in terms of manageability at this point. But, as he states, Apple is getting there. Someone with this attitude gives me hope that they’ll give the iPhone a fair review, keep an eye on it, and potentially roll it out as improvements dictate. With this kind of attitude, RIM should be worried.

On the other hand, there are still some backwoods folks, the kind RIM loves and hope to keep in its pocket forever:

“Frankly,” added a second, “some management in our organization think it’s more of a toy/gimmick thing because of the way it’s marketed.”

Ah, yes, the old “toy” argument. Just like a Mac was a “toy” 25 years ago. As if being fun, easy to use, and a major leap forward is a curse. Did they never consider that if a device is easy to use people will, you know, use it? Wouldn’t that be a benefit to their company? How short-sighted can a company get?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

When writing about Microsoft’s previous Laptop Hunters ad, I made the following plea:

So, Microsoft, I’m begging you to bring back Lauren #1. Give her the same $1,000 budget so she can easily rule out a Mac

In its newest ad, the company did reduce the budget (to $700), and I think this tack is its best bet.

The ad itself is unremarkable, but the “hunters” could easily rule out the Mac because of their budget. They didn’t have to invent ridiculous “excuses” that only make it clear they’re ill-informed. They simply had to point out there’s no Mac under a grand and be done with it.

It doesn’t mean they didn’t say stupid things (for example, I love it when he says “See how it just seems a lot more sturdy” when he’s not even holding the device). It’s especially stupid because having that line spoken while showing a silver PC reveals a massive case of “Unibody Envy.” And it doesn’t make the laptop they acquired any better. As I said about the original Lauren’s $700 choice:

Don’t kid yourself into thinking you got anything more than you paid for, or found some sort of computer bargain, or know some secret the rest of us aren’t clued in on. You asked for little, and that’s exactly what you got.

The point of using a low budget isn’t about the PC they get, it’s about avoiding comparing it to a Mac. Face it: When a valid comparison takes place, PCs frequently lose. It’s much better for Microsoft to avoid any comparison at all.

Want some additional advice, Microsoft? Run more of these sub-$1,000 ads. They tout low PC cost, get a shot at Apple, and yet avoid any direct comparison. It’s a win-win-win for you. Sure, the buyers get mediocre hardware, but what do you care? You’re selling software.

Oh, and bring back Lauren.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview

I’m talking about Google’s brand-new (on paper) Chrome OS. Introduced only a day ago, I’m disappointed we didn’t get a comic book to describe to us simpletons how this will revolutionize our life. Because it’s from Google. So you can run the company’s services. And see its ads.

With all the talk about how this impacts Microsoft, Linux, Apple and hardware manufacturers, the most important participant is ignored: the consumer. We already knew netbooks were primarily a geek’s toy, at best mildly interesting to general consumers, until Windows became available on them. Suddenly, they became an even cheaper cheap laptop, and sold in the millions. That’s still their consumer image today, and still fuels their sales. Google says people are clamoring for a leaner base from which to just launch a web browser, but that’s exactly how netbooks began — with the Linux/Firefox combo already mentioned — and consumers didn’t go there.

Besides, if Google just wants a newer web experience, it could port Chrome to Linux and work with a Linux distro to strip it to run lean. There’s no reason whatsoever for Google to write its own OS if this is all it wants, especially given that its first OS hasn’t exactly taken the world by storm.

Since this is Google, there are numerous posts hailing Chrome OS and questioning how it will change everything. I’ve seen the Wayne Gretzky “puck” quote bandied about. It’s nice to talk about skating to where the puck will be — Steve Jobs used it, and Apple seems to get there. The problem is that Jobs usually knows the users’ end goal, and therefore does know where the puck will be. Others do not. In fact, they frequently don’t even know the puck is going to be in the rink, let alone near the net.

Here are some things to consider before we get too excited about Chrome OS:

• It’s vaporware. Over a year away? That’s a lifetime in this market.
• In timing the announcement near Windows 7′s RTM, Google may hope to stall potential netbook gains Windows 7 might garner for Microsoft (i.e., The “Google OS” is coming, let’s wait). A market-freeze-via-vapor-announcement is classic Microsoft, and though it’s amusing to see its own tactic used against the company, it doesn’t make it any better coming from Mountain View instead of Redmond.
• Given Google’s track record, we can expect to see it in a year (assuming it’s on time) with a beta tag for maybe two years.
• Will being “Google” be enough to push the masses (there are those pesky consumers again) into buying netbooks in droves like the availability of Windows did?
• Netbooks are a familiar and traditional form factor; there’s nothing really different there. Consumers have shown they want a familiar and traditional OS on them.
• The real creativity in operating systems today is in the smartphone world, and will require a non-traditional form factor — not a small laptop — to carry over into larger devices.

Finally, Google’s announcement implies a certain disdain for a traditional computer OS, like it’s something that only hinders launching Google’s browser to use Google’s stuff. Sorry, while my browser is one of the apps I run all the time, I have many others as well. The web is nowhere near ready to replace this. It hasn’t the ubiquity, it hasn’t the reliability, it hasn’t the diversity and it hasn’t the speed. The idea that in a year we’ll begin moving from OS’s providing great flexibility and numerous functions — of which using the web is just one — to some “all-web” OS is not analogous to skating to where the puck will be; it’s analogous to people who once thought flying cars were just around the corner.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A 2011 Green IT Forecast
• Google TV: Overview and Strategic Analysis
• Why Google Android’s Electric Vehicle Deal With GM Matters