More on the iOS/Android cultural divide: Technology is not enough.

Matt Birchler, “The Shocking State of Enthusiast Apps on Android”:

I recently commented on Mastodon that I thought when it comes to
third party apps, iOS is remarkably far ahead of Android. My
feeling is that you can take the best app in a category on
Android, and that would be the 3rd to 5th best app in that
category on iOS.

It’s harsh, I know, but I really think it’s true for basically
every category of app I care about.

Someone responded to me saying that there are a bunch on Android
apps that are better than their iOS equivalents. I wanted to be
open-minded, so I asked what apps they would recommend I look at
to see how Android is ahead of iOS. They recommended a text
editor with a UI that looked more like Notepad++ than a modern
writing tool.

Birchler’s Mastodon post was in a thread I started with my question about the best Android Mastodon clients, but I hadn’t noticed that he’d written this article until today — a day after my take on the same theme. Birchler goes on to review an Android RSS reader named Read You, which seems to be the best feed reader on Android. To say that Read You wouldn’t even register on the list of best iOS feed readers is being kind. It’s enough to make you wonder if anyone on Android even knows what a feed reader is. Birchler’s review is more than fair. He’s not cherry-picking one app in one category — I think it’s fair to say that Read You exemplifies the state of Android, for, as Birchler calls them, “enthusiast apps”.

Android enthusiasts don’t want to hear it, but from a design perspective, the apps on Android suck. They may not suck from a feature perspective (but they often do), but they’re aesthetically unpolished and poorly designed even from a “design is how it works” perspective. (E.g., Read You doesn’t offer unread counts for folders, has a bizarrely information-sparse layout, and its only supported sync service was deprecated in 2014. It also requires a frightening number of system permissions to run, including the ability to launch at startup and run in the background.) And as I wrote yesterday, the cultural chasm between the two mobile platforms is growing, not shrinking. I’ve been keeping a toe dipped in the Android market since I bought a Nexus One in 2010, and the difference in production values between the top apps in any given category has never been greater between Android and iOS. And that’s just talking about phone apps, leaving aside the deplorable state of tablet apps on Android.

Michael Tsai found two threads on Hacker News with short threads discussing my piece yesterday, here and here.1 A representative comment from an Android user skeptical of my take:

What on earth is he asking for out of these apps? How do you
objectively compare one app’s “panache” with another? If I was a
developer, what are the steps I can follow to program some
“comfort” into my app? These complaints seem so wishy-washy and
underspecified.

Then he leaves with the Kubrick quote: “Sometimes the truth of a
thing isn’t in the think of it, but in the feel of it.” We’re
fully in the realm of mysticism now, this is not an attempt to
fairly compare or measure anything. […]

I think if he’s going to praise some apps and dunk on the other
ones, he should compare using measurable criteria. Otherwise,
it’s only one person’s opinion. Just saying “App X feels right”
is like saying “App X has a better chakra energy.” What is any
developer supposed to do with that feedback? The whole article
could have boiled down to “I personally like these apps and I
don’t like those.”

That’s like asking for “measurable criteria” for evaluating a movie or novel or song or painting. I will offer another quote from Kubrick: “The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good.”

Art is the operative word. Either you know that software can be art, and often should be, or you think what I’m talking about here is akin to astrology. One thing I learned long ago is that people who prioritize design, UI, and UX in the software they prefer can empathize with and understand the choices made by people who prioritize other factors (e.g. raw feature count, or the ability to tinker with their software at the system level, or software being free-of-charge). But it doesn’t work the other way: most people who prioritize other things can’t fathom why anyone cares deeply about design/UI/UX because they don’t perceive it. Thus they chalk up iOS and native Mac-app enthusiasm to being hypnotized by marketing, Pied Piper style.

What’s happened over the last decade or so, I think, is that rather than the two platforms reaching any sort of equilibrium, the cultural differences have instead grown because both users and developers have self-sorted. Those who see and value the artistic value in software and interface design have overwhelmingly wound up on iOS; those who don’t have wound up on Android. Of course there are exceptions. Of course there are iOS users and developers who are envious of Android’s more open nature. Of course there are Android users and developers who do see how crude the UIs are for that platform’s best-of-breed apps. But we’re left with two entirely different ecosystems with entirely different cultural values — nothing like (to re-use my example from yesterday) the Coke-vs.-Pepsi state of affairs in console gaming platforms. On mobile, the cultural differences are as polarized and clearly delineated as the politics of our national affairs.

It’s no fluke that among Steve Jobs’s final words on stage was his soliloquy about Apple existing at the intersection of technology and the liberal arts. March 2011:

It is in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough — it’s
technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities,
that yields us the results that make our heart sing.

Making your heart sing. That’s the difference.

Read More 

Spending a few hours perusing the state of the art in Android Mastodon clients gives me the distinct impression that Android is forever stuck in its Window 3.x era of UI polish and design. It’s rough.

Whilst we iOS users celebrate the recent releases of Thomas Ricouard’s Ice Cubes, Tapbots’s Ivory, and Tusker, and look forward to the imminent release of other new Mastodon clients like Shihab Mehboob’s Mammoth, over on Mastodon I asked what the best clients for Android are.

Long story short: crickets chirping.

The app that got the most recommendations is Tusky, an open-source client available free of charge. It’s fine, and for now, it’s what I’ve got on my home screen on my Pixel 4. But if Tusky were an iOS app, it wouldn’t make the top 5 for Mastodon clients. I’d describe its UI as brutalist. (Tusky does have fun “burst” animations when you tap the Like or Bookmark buttons on a post.)

Honorable mentions to Tooot, the official Mastodon client, and some open-source forks of the Mastodon app like Megalodon. There’s also Fedilab, which costs $2.50 on the Play Store but is also open source. I find Fedilab homely, even by the standards of Android apps, but it’s fast and has some neat features like built-in translation. (Bonus points to the fellow who suggested this Emacs mode, I believe non-sarcastically.) All of these apps are more brutalist than Tusky.

None of these Android clients would garner any attention at all on iOS. Tooot and the official Mastodon client are also available on iOS, and seemingly offer the same features and same basic interfaces on both platforms. There’s a reason third-party clients are overwhelmingly more popular on iOS than Mastodon’s official client — yet the Mastodon app is clearly among the best on Android. It’s really just a different world over in Androidtown. Things like fluid scrolling, swipe gestures, and tap-and-hold contextual menus are table stakes for an iOS app. None of the Android clients scroll fluidly, none offer swipe gestures, and only Tooot seems to offer a tap-and-hold contextual menu. But more broadly they all just look and especially feel inert and rigid. Nothing shrinks or stretches. There’s no life to them.

Google’s Android system software and first-party apps try. (The Chrome Android app in particular is iOS-caliber. Not iOS-style, but iOS-caliber, in terms of fluidity, originality, and attention to detail.) The Instagram app for Android tries. But for the most part, it seems like third-party Android apps don’t even try to achieve the look-and-feel comfort, fun, and panache of iOS apps. It’s a weird thing. The chasm between how iOS and Android apps look and feel is growing, not shrinking. The opposite happened with the Mac and Windows back in the ’90s. Windows itself and Windows software in the Window 3.x era were just awful. Starting with Windows 95, the gap closed significantly. Spending a few hours perusing the state of the art in Android Mastodon clients gives me the distinct impression that Android is forever stuck in its Window 3.x era of UI polish and design. It’s rough.

iOS and Android are, from a macro perspective, rival peer platforms. But it’s not like, say, game consoles — PlayStation vs. Xbox vs. Switch — where all of the major games on all of the consoles are striving for the highest possible production values. Not one Android Mastodon client seems to be striving for iOS-level production values. Again, not iOS style — just the baseline level of polish and detail-sweating that are de rigueur for apps like new Mastodon clients on iOS. Your bank’s iOS app probably sucks (mine does), but that’s because it’s probably a cross-platform web wrapper that’s nearly identical on Android (mine is). Nintendo Switch games don’t have the same style as PlayStation or Xbox games, but all of them are trying to be really nice. That’s just not a thing on Android. It’s banking apps almost all the way down. It’s an entirely different culture, with a different value system from iOS.

20 years ago my friend Brent Simmons wrote about why he chose to create apps exclusively for the Mac, despite the Windows market being so much larger:

One of the reasons I develop for OS X is that, when it comes to
user interface, this is the big leagues, this is the show.
That’s probably what Joel would call an “emotional appeal” — and
to call it that, that’s fine by me. […]

The other path is honorable and sensible and has its rewards too.

But to me it’s the difference between an empty night sky and a
night sky with all the stars shining and a big, bright bella
luna. “Emotional appeal?” Oh yes indeed. And I don’t apologize
for that for one second.

I’m well aware there are Android enthusiasts who choose and embrace the platform because they strongly prefer it. But the differing priorities of both users and developers between iOS and Android are rendered stark by looking at Mastodon client apps. There doesn’t seem to be a single developer trying to make a commercial Mastodon client for Android, for one thing. Everything feels like a hobby app because everything is. Android seems to be the platform for people who consider this comprehensive feature checklist to be a helpful resource for evaluating which apps they should try. iOS is the platform for users and developers who care about craftsmanship, who see emotional appeal as something far more essential than any feature comparison that can be expressed in a spreadsheet. I often cite this quote from Stanley Kubrick: “Sometimes the truth of a thing isn’t in the think of it, but in the feel of it.” It’s the feel of iOS Mastodon clients that makes them outclass those on Android.

iOS is now the show.

Read More 

I believe Apple must have answers to the question of why we will want to buy it, carry it, and use it in addition to and alongside all the devices we already buy, carry, and use. Why else bring it to market? But damned if I can imagine those answers.

Matthew Ball wrote a thoughtful, deeply-considered essay worth your attention, “Why VR/AR Gets Farther Away as It Comes Into Focus”:

Throughout 2015 and 2016, Mark Zuckerberg repeated his
belief that within a decade, “normal-looking” AR glasses
might be a part of daily life, replacing the need to bring out a
smartphone to take a call, share a photo, or browse the web, while
a big-screen TV would be transformed into a $1 AR app. Now it looks
like Facebook won’t launch a dedicated AR headset by 2025 — let
alone an edition that hundreds of millions might want.

In 2016, Epic Games founder/CEO Tim Sweeney predicted not
only that within five to seven years, we would have not
just PC-grade VR devices but also that these devices would have
shrunk down into Oakley-style sunglasses. Seven years later, this
still seems at best seven years away.

The appeal and utility of all-day AR glasses is obvious. But we are obviously very far away from such devices being possible, at any price. And I don’t think such devices will ever be goggles with a screen, using cameras to show the real world. I think they must be see-through lenses that somehow include display technology that can project opaque objects and virtual “screens” within your field of vision. I am convinced we will get there. I am equally convinced we are not close to being able to make such devices.

It’s like Alan Kay’s 1972 Dynabook concept, which clearly articulated the laptops and tablets that now dominate personal computing, and but we’re as far from practical AR glasses today as we were from Kay’s Dynabook in the early ’80s, if not the late ’70s, with several extremely difficult technical problems to be solved. The original PowerBooks didn’t arrive until 1991. Or perhaps AR glasses are to VR goggles as the smartphone is to the laptop, and as the laptop is to the desktop PC. The modern smartphone, I would argue, is just a pocket-sized Dynabook. Mass-market laptops took over a decade to arrive after desktop PCs. The iPhone took about 15 years after the PowerBook. VR goggles are seemingly poised to arrive about 15 years after the iPhone.1

My strong gut feeling is that mass-market all-day AR glasses won’t be feasible until 15 or so years after the first sensational VR goggles. They’ll require that much of, and that many, generational leaps forward: chip miniaturization, battery tech, display tech, and sensor tech.

Ball, on the use-case question for VR/XR goggles today:

The examples listed above are technically impressive, meaningful,
and better than ever. But the future was supposed to have arrived
by now. In 2023, it’s difficult to say that a critical mass of
consumers or businesses believe there’s a “killer” AR/VR/MR
experience in market today; just familiar promises of the killer
use cases that might be a few years away. These devices are even
farther from substituting for the devices we currently use (and it
doesn’t seem like they’re on precipice of mainstream adoption,
either). There are some games with strong sales — a few titles
have done over $100MM — but none where one might argue that, if
only graphics were to improve by X%, large swaths of the
population would use VR devices or those titles on a regular
basis. I strongly prefer doing VR-based presentations to those on
Zoom — where I spend 30-60 minutes staring at a camera as though
no one else is there. But the experience remains fraught;
functionality is limited; and onboarding other individuals is
rarely worth the benefit because its participants seem to find
these benefits both few and small. When the iPhone launched, Steve
Jobs touted it did three distinct things — MP3 player, phone,
internet communicator — better at launch than the single-use
devices then on the market. The following year, the iPhone
launched its App Store and “There’s an App for That” proliferated,
with tens of millions doing everything they could on the device.
The “killer app” was that it already had dozens of them.

This is, quite literally, the billions-dollar question: What are the intended use cases for Apple’s headset? After you buy it, unbox it, and power it on, what are you supposed to do with it? What features and experiences will seem worth spending a thousand or even thousands of dollars? I ponder this every day and I come up short:

Games — The visual appeal of a VR headset for gaming is obvious. But what’s the input story for an Apple headset that doesn’t come with handheld controller hardware? If Apple hasn’t been able to make its TV set-top box a major gaming platform after 16 years, how likely are they to do it for a headset priced like a premium PC, not like a gaming console?

Movies and TV — The visual appeal of a headset for watching video content is also obvious. In theory it’d be great while sitting on a plane or train — both visually and aurally immersive, like AirPods Pro but for both your vision and hearing. But who’s going to think that’s worth a thousand dollars, let alone perhaps thousands, when you’re still travelling with and carrying-on both an iPhone and a MacBook or iPad? Now that I carry tiny AirPods Pro with me everywhere I go, I don’t pack over-the-ear headphones (like, say, AirPods Max) in my travel kit, for reasons of bulk and weight — and Apple’s purportedly imminent VR/XR headset is almost certainly heavier and larger than AirPods Max.

Virtual meetings and FaceTime-style calls — Supposedly meetings in virtual reality with headsets are far more compelling than via Zoom with desktop/laptop/tablet displays and speakers. For the sake of argument, let’s just concede that that’s true. But for a $1,000+ headset to be compelling for such use presents a chicken-and-egg problem: it’s only possible when all or at least most of the people in the meetings are wearing compatible headsets. A virtual meeting where everyone else is participating Zoom-style but you are wearing a VR headset is going to make you look weird. And while FaceTime is phenomenally popular and much-used for personal calls, it is an utter non-entity for business meetings. Even Apple itself uses Webex for remote work meetings. Every successful platform Apple has ever established has been fundamentally driven by fun. The Apple II was a fun computer. The Macintosh was even more fun. The iPod and Apple TV are entirely about entertainment. The iPhone was the first fun phone. Apple Watch is Apple’s least fun platform, but I’d argue it’s the most “fun” wristwatch ever made. I suppose it’s true that work meetings in VR are more fun than via Zoom because they’re so much more immersive, but they can’t be more immersive than meetings in real life, and in-person real-life work meetings are seldom “fun”, and typically are dreadfully un-fun.

Personal computing via virtual projected displays — Mark Gurman’s latest report on the headset claims it “will be able to show immersive video content, serve as an external display for a connected Mac, and replicate many functions of iPhones and iPads”. But if you’re connected to a MacBook with a built-in display, why go through the hassle of carrying around and strapping on a headset? The obvious answer is that virtual displays in the headset might be far “larger” than even a 16-inch laptop display, and bigger displays are better. But all reports suggest that Apple’s headset will offer a 4K display per eye. 4K is generally 3,840 × 2,160 pixels. But Apple’s old 27-inch iMac and current Studio Display are 5K: 5,120 × 2,880 pixels. I don’t see how a headset with only 4K per eye can possibly simulate a virtual display with the field-of-view size and can’t-perceive-the-individual-pixels “retina” quality of a Studio Display. At your desk, I can’t imagine how wearing a headset would be better than sitting in front of a Studio Display. When travelling — even if your “travel” is no farther than your couch or the local coffee shop — it doesn’t seem worthwhile to wear a headset when your MacBook already has an excellent display, even if only 13 inches. Perhaps I simply lack imagination in this regard, and the experience will be far more compelling than I think it would be. But I just don’t see people spending $1,000+ to do their computing work wearing a headset when their MacBook already has a display built in, and the ability to see and participate in the real world around your display is inherent and entirely natural. If you’re carrying a hardware keyboard and a mouse/trackpad, why not carry an all-in-one laptop? And if you’re not carrying a hardware keyboard and mouse/trackpad, you’re never going to be as productive as you’d be if you did.2 And I haven’t even mentioned compute performance or battery life.

I can’t think of any other use cases for a VR/XR headset. I cannot believe that such a headset would be intended for wearing around as you go about daily life, augmenting the real world with virtual displays and ambient contextual information. That’s what we need AR glasses for, not VR goggles.

As I’ve repeated in my recent speculation about Apple’s headset, I am not dismissing it in advance. Quite the opposite — I look forward to experiencing it with great anticipation. I believe Apple must have answers to the question of why we will want to buy it, carry it, and use it in addition to and alongside all the devices we already buy, carry, and use. Why else bring it to market? But damned if I can imagine those answers, given the state of chip, display, and battery technology today.

Read More 

The latest MacBook Pro has a display that can reach 1600 nits of brightness. This brightness could only be reached when watching HDR videos, so we made Vivid!

Vivid unlocks the full brightness of your screen, system-wide. It works on the 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro with an M1 or M2 chip, as well as the Pro Display XDR.

Try Vivid for free and see the difference yourself. Whether you bought a new MacBook Pro this week, or if you want to give your “old” M1 Pro a cheap upgrade, get Vivid for 30% off this week!

 ★ 

The latest MacBook Pro has a display that can reach 1600 nits of brightness. This brightness could only be reached when watching HDR videos, so we made Vivid!

Vivid unlocks the full brightness of your screen, system-wide. It works on the 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro with an M1 or M2 chip, as well as the Pro Display XDR.

Try Vivid for free and see the difference yourself. Whether you bought a new MacBook Pro this week, or if you want to give your “old” M1 Pro a cheap upgrade, get Vivid for 30% off this week!

Read More