> In the end, I keep coming back to the idea that Apple has stayed quiet about the A4 because any real magic or “wow factor” that the iPad delivers will come from the software—the efficiency of the OS, the user interface design of the OS and apps, and the snappiness of the overall experience all come from the software team. > > In this respect, the iPad is actually a lot like the Mac. The Mac combines commodity hardware with great industrial design and a superior user experience. The iPad aims to do the same, but under a new compute paradigm that replaces the venerable keyboard-and-monitor combo with a slate form factor, and the decades-old WIMP-based UI (Windows Icons Menus Pointer) with multitouch. > > Perhaps an even better analogue for the iPad is Nintendo’s Wii, which is another product that relies for its success not on its processor, but on its novel interface and broadly accessible software. I’m sure that if the iPad can do for mobile computing what the Wii did for console gaming, Apple will consider it a resounding success. I can’t figure out whether or not Stokes is trying to criticize Apple in this article. Assuming his sources are correct, and the A4 really is based on the A8 rather than the A9 core, I still think he’s missing the point in saying that the A4 “isn’t anything to write home about.”

The fact that Apple stripped out everything the iPad doesn’t need and produced a chip that is as efficient and cleanly designed as possible is a big deal, if you ask me. It’s good to know that all those extra blocks that the iPad won’t ever use simply aren’t there. Why would it be a good thing for a device like the iPad to have four USB blocks, if it only needs one?

This is exactly why people spend more money for a Ferarri Scuderia than a standard F430. The Scuderia strips away all the extra creature comforts, like say, floor mats and a radio, so it’s lighter and more efficient, and thus ten times more fun to drive. Who cares if you don’t get air conditioning; you’re there for the cornering.

All this nerd talk doesn’t take away from the fact that at the end of the day, the iPad “screams” at 1GHz, and gets tremendous battery life. That, quite frankly, is something to write home about. At the end of the day, few of the iPad’s customers are going to care about A8 vs. A9 Cores; they’re just going to like a fast machine that does what it does well. Where that speed comes from is beside the point.

> The screen is vivid and high-resolution and looks really, really nice… that is, as long as you are indoors. Outside on a sunny day, the OLED screen is almost completely unusable. That’s kind of a big deal for a phone. I applaud HTC for pushing OLED technology forward, and I can see it being a great technology today for devices that require mostly indoor use, but *this is a phone*, and as such, I need to be able to use the damn thing outside. This article is a great read in general, but the above paragraph made me smile, because SOMEONE finally took the Nexus One outside and was honest about the OLED screen. Only took a few months for someone to mention what I consider a total deal breaker.

> **Though it is not yet in use, Apple has added a category for developers to label their applications as “explicit” software in the App Store for the iPhone and iPod touch.** > > A developer revealed to *Cult of Mac* that the new category is [available for selection](http://www.cultofmac.com/is-apple-preparing-to-add-an-explicit-section-to-the-app-store/31418) on the iTunesConnect Web site. However, applications with the “explicit” distinction have not yet appeared in the App Store. > > The change could signal that Apple is preparing to launch an adults-only section of the App Store that would segregate potentially offensive content from the remainder of applications. > > The move follows Apple’s removal of [more than 5,000](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/22/apples_overtly_sexual_iphone_crackdown_purges_5000_apps.html) applications the company said were “overtly sexual.” The change in policy came after the company received [numerous complaints](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/19/apple_changes_app_store_policy_on_overtly_sexual_content.html) from users who were concerned children would be able to access inappropriate content from the App Store on their iPhone or iPod touch. Whether those applications removed in the last week would be allowed in to the App Store under the new “explicit” category is unknown. I haven’t chimed in on this controversy yet, mostly because I wanted to see how it was going to play out. Personally, I don’t like the idea of Apple censoring all content coming into the App Store, mostly because it’s bound to lead to questionable decisions. There are simply too many gray areas here, as demonstrated by the swimwear app that got removed. Clearly, that was a bad decision, and Apple reversed it quickly. But more problems like that are bound to arise from this policy.

The worst thing Apple could do right now is spook its App Store developers into thinking their apps could be pulled at any minute for any reason. The inconsistency of being approved and then denied is really bad for business.

If it really was parents who complained to Apple that this content was available to their kids, I have to place at least some of the blame for that on parents. Why does your kid have an iPhone in the first place? And if he does, you do have some responsibility to monitor what your kids do with these kinds of devices. There’s nothing in any iPhone app that they can’t easily access from Safari, anyway.

I think simply removing any app with “sexual content” is a futile effort, and not really a good business move for Apple. And Apple seems to be recognizing that with this new “explicit” category that hasn’t been fully implemented yet.

The real problem wasn’t that these apps could be downloaded, since Apple already gives parents a way to lock down the phone’s ability to download certain content. The problem was that all these apps, along with screenshots, were still showing up in the App Store previews, even on parental controlled phones. My guess is that anything flagged as “explicit” will soon not appear at all in the App Store unless you check a “show explicit content” box somewhere. That solves the problem without censoring everyone. But there is still the open question of what makes content explicit. Will a swimwear company be forced to list itself as explicit? Will Sports Illustrated? Seems pretty harsh to me.

My guess is that it was not a few concerned parents, but rather school systems that made this particular demand of Apple. The iPad and iBook store are obviously great opportunities for Apple to rebound further in the education market. Having a simple way to block explicit content would be a compromise to help court schools, as well as textbook makers.

I’m sure it will all be figured out eventually. People forget that this is all new territory for any company. Apple is trying to walk that line of control, which is just in its DNA at this point. Sometimes I appreciate that Apple keeps certain things out of the App Store, like malware and spyware. But there’s a lot more work to be done before all the kinks are worked out.

> Roughly multiply that revenue by 50 states, and you quickly get an idea why red-light cameras designed by companies like Arizona’s Redlfex Group and American Traffic Solutions (ATS) are an increasingly attractive crutch for America’s cash-strapped cities. But they’re unsafe short-cuts, because they haven’t necessarily proven very effective at anything other than generating ticket revenue — and accidents, lots of accidents. In fact, [studies have repeatedly shown](http://techdirt.com/articles/20080410/011257809.shtml) that red-light cameras can cause more accidents, not less. I’ve been opposed to these red-light camera systems and other automated speed traps for years. It’s all about money, and nothing else. Not only do these things not increase safety, they actually put people’s lives in jeopardy. But we continue to let their use increase, because giving up our civil liberties and privatizing law enforcement to corporations is just par for the course in the US nowadays.

Law enforcement needs a human touch. There’s no computerized, cheap replacement for putting cops on the street.

> Google has announced that it plans to discontinue active development of Gears, a browser plug-in that enables Web features like local storage and geolocation services. The search giant says that emerging Web standards offer increasingly viable alternatives to the specific capabilities that are provided by Gears. This is absolutely the right move for Google. Sure, you risk upsetting some developers, but ultimately, standards trump proprietary plugins when it comes to browser functionality.

As long as Google kept this functionality in a plugin, it was never going to get Gears to work on the iPhone, anyway. With HTML5, Google not only gets iPhone compatibility for free and without risk of Apple’s blocking, but it also avoids platform conflicts, all while discouraging the use of lame browsers like IE in favor of Chrome. It’s a win-win for everyone but Microsoft. Which is exactly what Google wants right now.

I admire any company that has the guts to change its mind about future plans, in light of newly emerging technologies. So long as the change is clearly for the better.