By now you’ve probably seen the thousand or so stories criticizing Apple’s new Maps app in iOS 6. As this is sure to be the Apple scandal of 2012, right up there with “antennagate”, I think I’ll leave it to others to write up their own personal disaster stories. You’re probably bored of that already.

Instead, I want to talk about what I think is a much bigger problem for Apple: the iOS Clock app for iPad.

Now, bear with me; I know you probably get a heck of a lot more use out of Maps than an alarm clock, and I’m sure that in the scheme of things, Clock was the least of Apple’s worries for this release. But see, that’s the problem.

It’s not the Clock app itself, but rather what the Clock app on iPad represents—an Apple software division that’s overstretched and off its focus.

Take a look at exhibit A:

In this picture, you can see that I have two alarms set up for tomorrow morning. The first one is at around 6 am. (It’s actually 6:02, but you can’t tell the exact time from its placement here.) And the other is at 8:37. So far, not so terrible.

Now, let’s say you want to check on that 6:02 alarm. See what sound it’s set to play. Maybe set it up as a repeating alarm. Maybe delete it. Where might you think to tap? If you said on the alarm itself on the grid there, you’d be correct. Tap it, and a popover will appear with all the relevant settings, right? Wrong. Because this app sucks.

Tapping on the alarm itself in the grid does nothing but highlight the alarm, which is fairly useless. You can kinda sorta drag the alarm, but not really. (Try dragging it to another day if you think I’m kidding.) If you want to change the settings for this alarm, you have to instead tap the “Edit” button at the top left of the screen. Now, at that point, you’d expect the grid to go into “Edit” mode, as that’s what happens with every other iOS app since 2007, but that doesn’t happen. Instead, you get a popover extending down from the Edit button, with a list of all your alarms. Tap one of those, and you can edit the settings.

That’s right, folks. Here we have an iOS app, in 2012, designed by Apple, in which editing requires a level of abstraction for no particular reason. We don’t tap on objects to edit them anymore; we tap on menubar buttons and edit objects from a list in another part of the screen, like it’s 1996.

Are you kidding me?

Hey, I’m not the best UX guy on the planet. I’m in awe of some of the stupidity I’ve shipped over the years. But this is Apple we’re talking about. And this is a built-in app that ships with the device. And it behaves like it was designed by someone who doesn’t get the basic iOS user experience at all.

I remember reading about folks who worked for Apple back in the day. They’d spin tales of having designed the best thing they’d ever done in their lives, and then Steve or someone else would come in and make them start all over again. And after ten more revisions, they’d have the most amazing user experience ever created.

Those days are clearly over. This Clock app didn’t get more than one revision. It didn’t get the attention of anyone in management at Apple. At least I hope it didn’t.

Is this the end of the world? Of course not. Is Apple “losing it” since Steve Jobs died? Well, I’d argue the slide started before Jobs died. But the point is that these little things matter. They are a sign of bigger problems in the organization. When Apple stops sweating the details, that’s a really bad sign.

You can argue that Clock didn’t warrant much attention from Scott Forstall, since he had to worry about Maps and Passbook and so many other “tentpole” features for iOS 6. If that’s the case, then you don’t ship Clock with the product. You leave two or three of the 200 new features out until they are ready to ship in the next version. You don’t ship anything you haven’t had more than ten minutes to play with and make sure it doesn’t suck.

The fact that no one wanted or needed a Clock app from Apple on the iPad is all the more reason that Apple either should have built the best damn alarm clock ever or not bothered. The Apple I know makes those decisions.

These little slips on the “unimportant” things can be found all over iOS 6, by the way. It’s not just about Clock. (Don’t get me started on the Phone dialer.) And please don’t think I’m criticizing any of the fine designers working at Apple. There’s still a ton of talent going on in Cupertino way beyond my feeble skills.

But every designer pitches a terrible game once in a while. It’s when the manager doesn’t bring in the reliever that you give up runs.

What you need to know about the iPhone 5 and 5GHz Wi-Fi | Macworld:

Kish was recently at the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, N.C., where a Ruckus Wi-Fi network had been installed, for a live event. He speed-tested his Samsung Galaxy S III smartphone in the network: 60.33Mbps download, and 58.78Mbps upload.

“60Mbps is a serious amount of throughput to a mobile device under real-world conditions!” he says. “I have my fingers crossed that the iPhone 5 delivers similar results.”

(Via www.macworld.com)

This is my favorite new feature of the iPhone 5. I’ve always run my home 802.11n network on 5GHz only; up until now, all my iPhones have hooked on to the alternate 802.11g network I run simultaneously. I wanted my iMac to have maximum speed and throughput in the house, since that was the device most likely to need the extra oomph. (The Apple TV is wired into my Airport via Ethernet.) Finally, the iPhones in the house can join in at proper n speeds without me having to compromise my other devices. Should make those wireless backups and AirPlay run much smoother.

I had a blast speaking at this year’s 360iDev. As I promised my audience at the end of the talk, here are some of the articles I found while doing research over the past few months. Some great writers took the time to share their thoughts and helped shape mine on the subject. I owe them my gratitude.

• Making money in a crowded App Store: it’s dog eat dog and Spy vs Spy Richard Gaywood
• Death of the Free Web Cap Watkins.
• Screenwriters react to new Final Draft Writer iPad app Serenity Caldwell, Macworld.
• Indie Games Should Cost More, Pt. 1 Jeff Vogel.
• Indie Games Should Cost More, Pt. 2 The Expensening Jeff Vogel.
• 1,000 True Fans Kevin Kelly
• App Store has growing population of never-downloaded “zombie apps” Mike Schramm, TUAW
• The Tyranny of Low Price Seth Godin
• The Race to the Bottom Seth Godin
• Don’t Want to Pay $20 for an iPad Game? You’re Part of the Problem Nethaniel Mott, Pando Daily

I also wrote a few blog pieces of my own while doing research for this talk. In most cases, these are reactions to other articles which are referenced in each piece. Take the time to read the original pieces as well as my reactions to get the full perspective.

• Making Money on the App Store Shouldn’t be Dog Eat Dog
• The End of the Gold Rush
• My One-and-a-half Cents on App.net
• Telling me that Starbucks is a Trustable Experience is a Lousy Way to Convince me of Something
• Wall Street’s Harsh View of Facebook
• Not Quite Dead, but at least Diminishing
• I almost agree with David Barnard

Special thanks again to the folks at 360iDev (John and Nicole) who took a chance on an unknown speaker and hopefully weren’t disappointed. If you’re an iOS developer trying to make a living with your own apps, you’d do well to figure this great conference into your schedule for next year. Investing a little time and money into being a more active part of the iOS indie dev community pays for itself tenfold. And the sessions this year have been even better than last year so far.

If you want to learn more about the apps that I help build with my partners at Bombing Brain Interactive, you can always head over to that site to have a look.

Making money in a crowded App Store: it’s dog eat dog and Spy vs Spy:

And if you’re Apple? Well, Apple benefits from a crowded App Store marketplace where developers cut prices to the bone in an attempt to stand out from the crowd. Every single app uploaded to the App Store adds value to every iOS device in existence; every single app a customer buys is another reason for them not to migrate away from iOS in the future.

Apple is certainly motivated to keep the App Store busy, and sales high; these things help iOS stand out from competitors like Android. But it’s not motivated to keep prices high. In fact, lower prices for apps help to attract consumers to iOS as a platform, selling more of the hardware devices from which the bulk of Apple’s vast profits flow.

The bottom line: I don’t think it’s likely Apple will do anything of consequence to help struggling smaller devs.

(Via TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog)

First things first. This is a great post by Richard Gaywood that every iOS app developer should read. And he’s right; we need to be having conversations about this. My talk at 360iDev on this subject is meant to stir up this conversation further, as I think it’s one of the most important topics facing iOS developers today.

On the above quoted point, I have to say I agree that Apple is motivated to keep prices low and keep competition fierce on the App Store. But there’s a limit. If prices drop down to the point where the only people who can make money on the App Store are venture-capital backed startups and giant software companies who don’t care about losing money for years, then iOS as a platform will stagnate and die. A platform full of casual games and one-trick pony apps doesn’t get to take over computing the way Apple wants the iPad to take over computing. The iPad needs desktop-class apps to fulfill its destiny as the post-pc laptop replacement. To make it hard for indie devs to be able to make a decent living making great, deep software would be extremely shortsighted on Apple’s part.

Apple will be left in the position it was in back in 1997; not enough good software to keep users interested in the platform. It’s a nightmare scenario that sounds ridiculous today, but could easily become a reality in a few short years if Apple isn’t careful.

Apple’s best interest has always been for there to be lots and lots of small companies thriving on the App Store. That way, no one company can ever gain too much power over Apple. It’s working fine now, even though most devs are going belly up, because there are still enough people out there who are green enough to think they can strike it rich overnight. Once the word gets out that developing for iOS is a crap shoot at best, those devs will move on to some other platform to get rich quick. And whoever is left will determine how well the App Store does long term.

But it’s also important to note that the 99¢ rush wasn’t all Apple’s fault. True, the ranking system led people to lower prices at a feverish pace. But that was the lazy way out. Who decided that the top sales charts were the only effective marketing strategy for apps? Instead of investing in getting the word out, taking marketing into our own hands on the web and everywhere else, we all relied on that one chart as our only tool to get noticed. Lowering prices couldn’t have ended well, as price is a weapon we all have in our arsenals. We had a perfect model in the hardware industry to teach us that lesson. PC makers raced each other to bankruptcy to cut margins to almost nothing while Apple concentrated on the high-end, profitable sector of the business. Who won that battle?

We’ve been fighting each other when we should be working together to produce a fair market with reasonable prices. Four years of the App Store now, and there still aren’t good resources for finding apps or marketing apps. Most dev strategies for marketing boil down to make the app free, climb the charts, hope Apple features you. Or pay people for reviews. Pretty lame plan, if you think about it.

People aren’t cheap; we sell enough copies of our $14.99 Teleprompt+ every day to convince me that there are still some people willing to spend a bit of money on something good. You just have to break through that trust barrier. People don’t know who you are; you’re asking them for money, which is a risk. You don’t lower the risk by giving them something for free and then figuring out a way to milk them for money later. You gain their trust by showing them how great your product is, and by sticking to your pricing strategy. Nothing says “I’m full of crap about how much my app is worth” like a sale.

And no, you won’t be the next billion-dollar Zynga or Rovio. But get over yourself. Make a living and be ready to stay in it for the long haul. As long as that’s possible, and some people put in the work and have the patience, the few devs who soldier on and stick it out can do well enough.

One Year Later, the iPad Is Still My Favorite Computer | Techland | TIME.com: “Back when I started, the notion that an iPad could largely replace a conventional computer was, um, a tad unusual. Some of the people who read my story, in fact, seemed to maintain that it was impossible, or at least that I was a moron for doing so. As one commenter put it: ‘This article is irresponsible. The iPad 2 is still an accessory to your REAL computer. To say that an iPad can replace your primary computing device is misleading and false.’”

(Via. Harry McCracken, TIME)

A few years from now, stories like this will seem silly. You mean, there were actually people who thought you couldn’t do most of your computing with a tablet? People actually thought laptops would be around forever?

I don’t know why people refuse to learn from the past, but they never seem to. I remember when I first switched to a laptop as my primary computer in the ’90s. People still thought of laptops as casual, travel machines that you used in a pinch back then. No serious computer user would try to get by day to day with just a laptop. They simply weren’t powerful enough to outclass a desktop tower.

Harry McCracken is simply an early adopter of what will very quickly become the normal use case for most of the computer-using world.

Remember: the iPhone is currently Apple’s cash cow, but the iPad is outpacing the iPhone’s growth and will eventually become the primary money maker for Apple long-term. And offices everywhere will be issuing tablet devices to their employees, instead of clunky PCs soon enough.