Earlier today, I wrote on Apple’s hint at the iPhone 5. To be honest, I wrote the article solely to show you this amazing gif.
I’ll show it to you again. Just in case you missed it the first time.
Anyway, throughout the day I glanced over numerous takes on the naming matter, and MG’s snippet seems to sum it up quite well with, “because of reasons.”
Which, to be exact, is marketing.
Remember Ocean’s Twelve? It wasn’t the 12th film in the series, it simply followed Ocean’s Eleven. Maybe it’s best to think of it that way.
It’s for the people
Non-followers of tech already refer to the upcoming iPhone as iPhone 5. If Apple swung a curveball at them – because let’s be honest, there are more of them than us – and called it iPhone 6, they’ll look blankly into space.
They’ll then proceed to ask seemingly silly questions like “wait, when did the iPhone 5 come out? How did I miss that?! Is it cheaper than the 6?!!” All of which they’d be right to ask. Why? Because 5 comes after 4. And don’t get me started with “The New iPhone.” That’ll just mindblow them.
Apple doesn’t want any of that. So instead they’ll say screw counting by generations. We count in order.
So by now you must have heard that there will indeed be an Apple event on September 12th (next week Wednesday). Apple has reportedly sent out its media invites and the countdown begins.
There’s just one thing that has me scratching my head.
It’s subtle, but the ‘12’ casts a ‘5’ shadow. Two things are wrong with this picture.
1) It’s not the fifth iPhone.
The first iPhone was rightly named, ‘iPhone.’ The second iPhone was named 3G because it was 3G compatible. The third was named 3GS, because–as Apple put it– it was a “speedier” and amped version of its predecessor. And, it was the third device. The forth was named ‘4.’ That’s where the company screwed themselves. Maybe they were hoping to make the device 4G compatible by then, failed, but kept the numeral? The fifth was named the 4S for a similar reason as the 3GS.
Now, the sixth device will supposedly be called the iPhone 5? The sixth device? That means in it’s catalog, Apple will refer to it as iPhone 5 (6th-generation). That looks odd. Why not iPhone 6, Apple? Or even The New iPhone (like you did with the third iPad).
2) It’s a deformed clock.
This is how a clock looks.
Notice how the 6 is across from the 12. If Apple could count, and wanted to retain its subtle fanciness in the banner image, it could have done something along the lines of this.
Essentially, there’s the date (12), the time (10am), and the reason for the season (iPhone 6).
But maybe we’re all wrong. Maybe 12-5 = 7 inch iPad.
Not working today? How about showing off your workspace via @instagram? Snap a shot and tag it #industryworkspace
So I did just that. However, I didn’t feel like the photo did my workspace any justice. So i grabbed my Nikon, snapped a few shots, dabbled in Photoshop, wrote a few lines in Espresso, and made this.
A webpage dedicated to my workspace. Not to mention, I linked to everything I use, so you can go shopping with a pre-made list if you decide. Check it out!
Going along with what Nathan Kontny said yesterday, once in a while we as writers, designers, developers, and creatives alike should pause and simply say thanks. There’s so much wrong with the web, so much to resent and point out, that often times we easily get caught up in such negative things.
Then we write daily short articles that narrate these negative things. We point out the terrible decisions made by large tech companies and silly opinions by people. They get the hell retweeted out of them, hit the front page of Hacker News, then we relax–with a smile (how ironic)–as we watch our blog analytics reach new heights.
But sometimes we just need to take a break and show some kindness.
Kindness (ˈkīn(d)nis) noun The quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.
Yes, there is negativity all over the web, but there’s also positive things. There are too many folks out there trying their best to help others for us to focus on just the negative. That’s why, starting today, I’ll be writing one piece/week that will points out things I find interesting and I’ll simply say thanks. This includes products & services that make my life easier, admirable people doing amazing things, and anything that floats my boat. You don’t have to read them, you don’t even have to hover over that circle thingy to the right. I’ll just be letting you in on the things I like.
The thanks these people deserve are often overlooked for the top hate post against Facebook or Microsoft for the day. But they still deserve their thanks. They deserve an act of kindness.
Today, I’ll point out three products/services/people.
I hate to-do lists. I hate services that claim to make my life more orgainzed, but in the end force me into thinking my life is more hectic than it actually is.
But Cheddar is different. It’s simple and fast. And yes there’s a charge after 2 lists, but you already know my stance on that.
Jeff Sheldon is doing amazing work over at Ugmonk. They continually put out amazing tees, hoodies, prints, and premium accessories that decorate both my body and desk. They have a firm mission and they stick to it.
As the market continues to become saturated with overly complex, cluttered designs, Ugmonk’s mission is to provide high-quality products with simple, fresh graphics.
It looks nice. Simple and square – nothing wrong with that. However, I do wish that they had dropped the logotype “Microsoft,” and simply stick with the symbol as their new logo.
After all, we have seen this color combo for 25 years now (and it was basically the Windows logo). What could we possibly mix it up with?
pause.
Besides, they seem to put heavy emphasis on it too:
The symbol is important in a world of digital motion (as demonstrated in the video above.) The symbol’s squares of color are intended to express the company’s diverse portfolio of products.
So is Microsoft afraid of such a move? Or do they simply love the Segoe font (which is the same font they use in their products as well as their marketing communications) that much? I don’t know.
Others' Thoughts
So after logging my initial reactions in my Moleskine, I asked around, naturally. Most folks said it was “cool,” “works for what they’re trying to do,” “clean and minimal,” etc.
Then there were those who said it looked like what a 4-year-old would accidentally do with four crayons and forty seconds. Or a grandmother, or passing time in MS Paint.
And the biggest one of all came from my friend Joshua Schnell, founder/editor of Apple tech-blog, Macgasm.
When I asked “what are your thoughts on the new Microsoft logo,” he responded quickly with a link.
That could very well be the point, but, every time I look at the new logo, I don’t see Microsoft. Instead, I now actually see Boot Camp. Apple’s Boot Camp has been around since April 5, 2006. The application is used to assist users in installing, you guessed it, Microsoft Windows on Intel-based Macintosh systems.
His point, in a picture:
On the left is Microsoft’s new logo, and on the right is Apple’s Boot Camp logo. But in Microsoft’s defense, their version of the box logo came out long before Apple’s Boot Camp. Still, this is funny.
And then there’s the Google Chrome logo comparison that Gruber points out.
Regardless, it’s a big step for Microsoft. Well done guys. Now convince the world that you’re back and ready for action.
For those of you who hate long articles, I’ll summarize everything in one sentence.
Creators, if you know it’s worth it, charge for your product.
There.
Now for you who don’t mind a few chunks of text, let’s continue. I came up with the idea for this brain dump after last month’s Sparrow acquisition. In that post I said,
If we give these ingenious app creators the financial security they deserve, maybe, just maybe, they’d see a longterm profit in their work and turn these tech giants down. But until then, don’t complain when Google or Facebook show up in front of their door and offer them million dollar buyouts (and in some cases, well paying jobs).
Developers, if you know it’s worth it, charge for your product. Sparrow was worth its weight in gold and I would have happily dropped $49 for the Mac client and $19 for the iOS app… if it had push notifications. And users, stop complaining. In most cases, you’re spending less than you would on lunch.
But that’s not the only argument I wanted to make.
Joe
Let’s create a little learning scenario here.
Meet Joe.
Joe has just spent the last 4 months working on his first iOS app, but it sucks. Like really sucks. Anyway, he wraps up his final moments in Xcode, shows off the final product to his overly loving mother (who of course says it’s amazing, as mothers would) and gets cracking on the icon. Luckily for him, his Photoshop skills are kick-ass and he whips up an icon worth the #2 spot on Dribbble’s homepage.
He submits, waits, somehow it’s approved, and it’s in the App Store. Price point? Free. Now the fanatic app downloaders, who literally download any and every app, download this one. When Joe takes a look at his app’s statistics, he’s at 358 downloads. Not bad for a crappy application.
But what does that number tell him?
Nothing.
Besides the star ranking and skewed comments, Joe knows nothing else. He doesn’t know if the users saw value in his product. After all, because it was priced at free, they literally lost nothing by tapping that download icon other than screen real-estate.
But if he charged…
The Value
1) Helps repay the time and energy exerted.
Who doesn’t want to earn a buck or two for their energy? Not to mention, food isn’t free. When I asked around for people’s take on charging, my Industry co-founder, Drew Wilson, had this to say:
Charging enables the developer (or team) to continue to pump their blood into the product. Otherwise they will have to seek out another opportunity in order to pay bills and continue feeling good about life.
2) Helps determine the value of your product.
Had Joe priced his application at $0.99 or even $2.99, he would have had much less downloads. Why? Because it’s human nature to be a little skeptical prior to purchase. People would have thoroughly read the description, closely looked at the screenshots, and still not download. No one wants to waste money.
I myself would prefer to have my paid-for product downloaded 1,000 times than have it downloaded 4,000 times for free. Because when someone makes the move to pay for it, that tells me they saw something worth their money. Thats what I want to know.
3) Encourages you to do more.
When you’re planning to charge for something, your goal is to get people to make the purchase, right? So naturally, that will encourage you to do more. When you receive emails alerting you of major bugs and errors in your product, you’ll patch them up in no time.
When people demand a new feature, you’ll do your best to add it (and sometimes, at an additional cost which reenforces numero uno).
Think about it. If it were free, after a while you’ll simply say screw it to the emails and move on to the next free product. Unless, of course, if you have clones.
My friend Sam Soffes made the point that when you charge for your product, you’re creating “a contract with your customers. Now you both expect you to make higher quality products. This is good.”
Of course, there will those of you who say you build products just for the fun of it. And that’s fine. In fact, I’m in full support of building just to build. But if you feel that way, then you’re missing the point. I’m not saying charge for anything and everything you make. Reread the second sentence.
And to close
Now don’t get me wrong. Charging for your product won’t guarantee you a long, healthy, and prosperous product/business. But it is a way to repay yourself for your hard work and to find your product’s worth.
It’s valuable. It’s fair.
But before putting a sticker tag on that product of yours, ask yourself this. “Would I pay for this?” If the answer is no…
… stick with $0.00. The fanatic downloaders will thank you in the comments.
Some minutes ago, the incredible guys at Obvious Corp. announced the launch of their newest project, Medium.
Immediately, I read Ev William’s opening piece explaining the reasoning behind the idea. I then chased down my friends at Obvious for a first-class invite into the special project (I’m still waiting Geoff and Dann…). But I digress.
In William’s article, he made many points which I found hard to disagree with. One such point:
Still, some things haven’t evolved as much as we would have expected. Lots of services have successfully lowered the bar for sharing information, but there’s been less progress toward raising the quality of what’s produced. While it’s great that you can be a one-person media company, it’d be even better if there were more ways you could work with others. And in many ways, the web is still mimicking print concepts, while not even catching up to it in terms of layout, design, and clarity of experience.
But then I thought to myself, isn’t that what Dustin Curtis had hoped to achieve with his invite-only Svbtle network?
An invite-only network of people who strive to produce great content. We focus on the writing, the news, and the ideas. Everything else is a distraction.
Not to mention, Curtis pretty much nailed the “layout, design, and clarity of experience,” too.
If so, then the question arises what’s the difference between Svbtle and Medium? And which one is better, more thought out, etc.?
While I can only speculate at this point, primarily because I’m not in the thing yet (I’m still waiting Geoff and/or Dann), I can say for certain that the web’s bar on quality has been lowered significantly and it’s the duty of those who truly love the web to raise it once again. I commend Obvious and Curtis for their efforts, and I too “believe publishing—and media, more broadly—is important.”
If you haven’t heard by now, our dear Sparrow has been acquired by Google. With that, ends the updates to their existing Mac and iOS applications, but not their vision for better email.
I’ve read dozens of tweets and tech blogs that expressed their disapproval of the acquisition. Yet, within the same articles and 140 characters, they showed their supposed ‘loyalty and commitment’ to Sparrow. Seems a bit ironic if you ask me.
But I digress.
Anyway, late Friday evening, I had a five minute rant on Twitter. In it, I explained my theory that everyone should simply leave Sparrow alone. They built an amazing application that, in its time, served us well. Yes, they’ve now moved on to higher mountains, but so what? That’s their decision. Besides, from what Leca, Hoà, and Denis have been reiterating throughout the interwebs this past weekend, the assault team of five hope to change things up at Google for the better. And you never know, we just might see a Sparrow influenced Gmail revamp in the coming months. After all, there’s no doubt that Google is up to something with that email engine of theirs (saw the new Gmail logo at Google I/O?).
In my rant, I made a few points.
First point:
Remember the terminology “acqui-hire?” Talent acquisition is the main reason behind most of these startup buyouts. Google wants the Sparrow team, not Sparrow. If they wanted the latter, they would have simply given Leca a lump some of cash in return for full ownership of the app, and further updates would have been available in the near future. But neither are happening. Besides, why would they want a product that exists because of one of theres (especially when they’ve created a “competitor”). Following? Instead, they want the people who built on their existing product better than they could.
Second point:
The hypocrisy is absurd. Developers price the applications that they’ve spent months to years on for $0.99 to $9.99 – to put that in perspective, that’s a pack of Twizzlers and some good coffee – then we complain that the apps are too pricy. The funny part? When the company is bought out for its true value ($5M+), we complain that they’ve betrayed us. Bull.
If we give these ingenious app creators the financial security they deserve, maybe, just maybe, they’d see a longterm profit in their work and turn these tech giants down. But until then, don’t complain when Google or Facebook show up in front of their door and offer them million dollar buyouts (and in some cases, well paying jobs).
Developers, if you know it’s worth it, charge for your product. Sparrow was worth its weight in gold and I would have happily dropped $49 for the Mac client and $19 for the iOS app… if it had push notifications. And users, stop complaining. In most cases, you’re spending less than you would on lunch.
Anyways,
Early this year, I had the opportunity to interview both Dom Leca, the co-founder, and Jean-Marc Denis, the gifted designer. And in both interviews, I sought after the main goal of Sparrow. And what they thought its purpose was.
“We had this idea that mail was broken,” said Leca. “We weren’t using Mail.app on the Mac because we found that it was taking up too much screen space and it was a huge application for something that shouldn’t be.” Similarly, Denis expressed his frustration of Mail for iOS. “It didn’t ‘work’ well enough,” he said.
Well, in the coming months they’ll be sending email from the PT timezone. Google is hoping that along with their luggage, the Sparrow team will bring over their unique vision for a better email. After all, the tech giant probably feels like they’re lacking talent in the email department. And I’m sure these five are sure to fill the gap. Let’s see what they whip up.
In the meantime, stop bugging Sparrow. Yes, we may not be into the whole buyout thingy, but this is great news for Leca and his team. Let’s suck it up and be happy for them. If anything, Sparrow still exists in the app store. So go buy it, and please, please, please, don’t complain about the price – seriously.
Perpetual, adjective, means never-ending. That’s how I view design – it never ends. Rather, it transcends the office or work hours, gatherings or conferences, force closing Photoshop or Illustrator, Coda or Espresso, Mac or PC, and everything in between. When we start to think of design as something that’s ongoing, our outlook changes, our thought processing changes, and ultimately, our design changes.
