Be Excellent To Each Other

.. on my computer
http://www.ricklindeman.nl/files/paradigms.html

Standard Comic Sans response: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/monolog ... csans.html

I've used Prezi a few times - it's good, isn't it?

Also, not sure if you care, but you wrote "You start start with a structure".

Nice article, and I fully agree. I'm way more productive in WriteRoom (in fullscreen mode, natch) than in Word, which I now avoid using entirely (having gradually reduced my reliance on it over the years). And Scriv's top-notch for long-form stuff (especially when you consider the web-page grabbing for research).

That's Excellent

Malc

Prezi -- slides with fancy animations between the slides.



Who thought that? Apps have always been what computers are for. See: Killer App. Lotus notes was a "killer app". Doom was a killer app, etc. No one buys a device just so they can run an OS. They buy it so they can run things on it.

Computers, yes. On phones, not so much.

The word "app" is shifting in meaning though, and I'd argue is no longer synomonous with "application". Feasible micro payments now allows developers to ship tiny, focussed programs that do one small thing well, rather than hundreds-of-pounds heavyweight programs like Photoshop and Word. This is something deeper than mobile vs desktop; this is small vs large.

Isn't the word "app" copyrighted?

Makes about as much sense FEEX.

Anyway, the latest I heard on the word "app" was that Apple has filed an application for a trademark, and Microsoft has filed a motion to deny.

The term 'app' isn't owned by anyone (Apple's filed an application for 'app store'—Apple already has a mark for 'there's an app for that'), although Jobs has been using it since his NeXT days. On any distinction between 'applications' and 'apps', many developers I interviewed for a big PC Plus feature on this subject think along the lines of Glyndwr, but some argue Apple's Mac App Store is rapidly removing that distinction. Increasingly, it's becoming about the ecosystem/simplicity (i.e. click 'buy' and enter a password, versus go to website, search for download link, click download link, unpack archive, install application, launch application, set into demo mode, return to website, find buy link, buy product, twiddle thumbs while waiting for registration key email, get email, laboriously type serial number into product, finally use product... until it needs updating).

That said, there's also a sense that people are being trained to require more focussed products in general, due to smartphone usage. Although it's a sub-optimal product, it can't be any coincidence that the straightforward-looking Pixelmator has become a Mac App Store hit. Elsewhere, an increasing number of products are shifting to full-screen-oriented views.

On OS 'versus' apps, my reading of romanista's commentary was more along the lines of the windowing model slowly becoming obsolete, despite it since the mid-1980s being dominant on the Mac and practically ubiquitous cross-platform since the 1990s (esp. after Win 95). You still 'need' an operating system, obviously, but most people seem to prefer one that totally gets out of their way, bringing the app to the fore.

I think they'd struggle. It's been the commonly accepted (among tech folk) short form of 'application' long before the iPhone came along.



Pretty sure that's App Store, not App.

EDIT - Damn you, Craig.

Ooh, right you are.

Apple are trying to copyright the term "App Store" (retarded as it's too generic) and Microsoft are fighting it as being too generic to trademark (hypocritical, as they own trademarks on "Windows", "Office", and "Word") but I don't think anyone is actually claiming the word "app" itself.

@Craig- I have a hunch that when we look back the Mac App Store's biggest contribution will be micro payments allowing types of programs that were not commercially feasible before, rather than simplicity to the purchasing process, but it's early days yet. Certainly both factors matter.

I think the buying (and, related, discovery) process is fundamental to everything 'app'. Before the App Store arrived on iOS, it was relatively rare for people to buy mobile apps and games. But rather than Apple suggest it's something people might do, it became the entire cornerstone of iOS, with Apple training and encouraging people to buy software from day one (of iOS 2, obv.). But, to my mind, it's the streamlined UX that makes this a success. The fact there are many millions of credit cards attached to iTunes, and you subsequently only having to click 'buy' and type in a password is a quantum leap in software purchasing.

Along with this, strong discoverability (i.e. the App Store icon on the iOS home screen or the Mac App Store in the Dock or Apple menu) gets more eyeballs, which in turn leads to potentially more products being feasible. I suspect you're perhaps right that the key thing people will remember is the shift in software (many more Mac games; lots of small, focussed products), but it's the purchasing process that enables such things.

It's different though, the smartphone becomes the app. It changes from a phone to camera, to a mp3 player, to a twitter feed, to a browser. The iOS is an OS in only the way it facilitates the device becoming a different device. In makes perfect sense for a the limited screen space of a phone but it is actually an extremely powerful tool for productivity. It encourages focus and depth of activity.

Hence the success of Write Room, Readability and the reason why fullscreen apps appear to be a cornerstone of OS X Lion. The OS primarily shouldn't be there.

Obviously I'm not discounting the power of having multiple windows open simultaneously on a big monitor, it's essential. But I do think the proposed 4 finger swipe between apps on the ipad seems a better idea than the hodgepodge of combined feeds on Android.

Since the Lion preview, I'm beginning to think that the windows 'n icons side of graphical OSes is on its way to being an optional 'under-layer' for more techy users, just as, for example the UNIX command line interface is on Mac OS X currently. (MHO as someone who doesn't work professionally with computers.)

That's very clearly where Apple wants to push things, although the devs I interviewed also argued that a 'windowless' approach is also beneficial for smaller screens, too (such as on the MacBook Air). So, yeah: home user/pro on very small screen = full-screen UIs; pro user on big screen = optional windowed apps.

Have we had our horse armour moment?

this is what imeat..

oh and pixelmator became a hit due to there being a market for a cheap friendly looking photoshop like programme, even for people who have a pirated photoshop..