The Mac App Store will sell Windows software

There has been more talk on the web about Apple's App Store for the Mac and how it may/may not be a game changer. Will it completely change the way that software is distributed? Will it blow apart the current software sales channels? Will it make millions for those developers that get into the store early as they did with the iPhone//iPad/iPod Touch app store? Not until it sells Windows software.

When you look at the incredible sales and download numbers of the iTunes iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch app store, what you have got to remember is that the majority of iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch users are Windows users. Lots of people have iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches, and they own and use Windows PCs. The phones, tablets and music players work great with Windows PCs.

Without all those Windows users buying and downloading apps from the iTunes store, would it be as successful? If you look back at the history of the iPod, it didn't really take off until it was made compatible with Windows PCs. When you could plug it into a Windows PC and download and install iTunes people got really interested in the device and sales rocketed. Without those Windows users Apple wouldn't dominate the music and music player market as it does now.

The Mac App Store is by definition only for Apple Macs and they have a world-wide market share of less than 10%. There are millions of Mac users of course, and no doubt many will find a Mac App Store very useful for finding and buying software over the internet. However, the Mac market is small in comparison to the Windows market, and therefore it follows that Mac App Store sales will also be small too. We're not going to see the huge sales figures and massive profits that iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch developers have earned.

The Mac App Store will only be a minor success in a minor market and the one way to make it a game-changer that will revolutionise the software industry is to sell Windows software. Is that idea so bizarre? No. iTunes already runs on Windows PCs and Windows users can download and buy software right now. Of course, they have to install it on their iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch, but couldn't they install it in Windows instead? It's hard to see a reason why not.

We'll soon see the Mac App Store and get to explore it for real rather than simply speculate about it. I doubt whether it will sell Windows software on day one and it is almost certainly going to be Mac only, but surely Apple must be thinking of selling Windows software at some point in the future. For 90% of computer users the launch of the Mac App Store is a non-event. It's just something for the Apple fanboys. People will only sit up and take notice when Apple starts selling Windows software.

Read More

Apple's app store will be a minor success

It is rumored that Apple will be launching an app store for the Mac in a few days and the big question is will it be a success? I think it will be successful in a small way, but nowhere near the extent of the iTunes app store for iPhones and iPod Touches. A Mac app store offers some advantages to some people, but no matter how hard Apple tries to convince people that it is the best thing ever, it really won't be. It will be useful in some circumstances, but sometimes you'll want to look elsewhere for you apps and there will be several pros and cons of using an Apple Mac app store.

iPhone and iPod Touch owners are forced to buy from the iTunes app store and there is no alternative source of software. The store has a 100% market share and everyone else is locked out. This is why it is so successful and why so many people use it. When it comes to buying Mac software though, you can buy from high street stores, you can buy from online stores and you can buy direct from the software publisher. An Apple-run Mac app store will just be one more supplier among a large number of suppliers and this is one reason why it won't be as successful as the iTunes app store.

There are thousands of applications for the Mac and searches at Google and dedicated software sites will enable you to find them very easily. A big problem is trust though. You might see a great app on a website that you would like, but you've never heard of the company or person selling it and you are nervous about handing over your credit card details to them. Can they be trusted or is it a scam? This is where an Apple Mac app store will score. It will be an online store that you can trust. It will be brilliant for small developers and little known companies because they'll be able to sell through the app store to people that wouldn't normally buy from them or even find them on the web. Consumers will feel at ease handing over credit card details to Apple and sales will boom.

It will be less of an advantage to a big company and no-one has any issues about buying Photoshop direct from Adobe. It's the little companies and back-bedroom programmers that will benefit the most.

The app store apparently won't allow betas, demos or trials and this is a clear disadvantage. Without a trial you won't know whether the software is suitable for you or whether you'll like it and therefore buying it will be a bit of a gamble. Software developers may offer trials on their websites though, so it may be possible to track down one and try it. You could later then buy it through the app store if you do decide that it's a great app and is useful to you.

One advantage of buying direct from the developer though is that you can often get big discounts. You download some software, try it and when the trial period runs out you can get big discount offers in your email inbox. This isn't going to happen with the app store. Software from the app store may cost more than you would otherwise pay, so shop around for the best deal.

The app store will be good for people that don't know much about computers because it will be easy to access and it'll be easy to download and install software. This is another reason why it will be a success.


So there are pros and cons with an Apple Mac app store. I for one will only buy from it if I can't find the application cheaper elsewhere and then only after I have run a free trial though.

Read More

Should you upgrade?

With Christmas and the New Year rapidly approaching, it is the season for spending and thoughts of treating yourself may have crossed your mind. Should you upgrade your software to the latest version? Perhaps there is a new release of some application that you use and it looks very tempting. Maybe the software you are currently using is now getting quite old and needs a refresh. The same is true of hardware too and there are lots of shiny new computers and gadgets sporting the latest technology to choose from, so is it time to upgrade? My philosophy has always been to skip a version, so for some people the answer is yes, upgrade now, but the advice is to wait for the next version whenever that may be,

Take Windows for example. Windows 98 was a great operating system and it was very popular. Then along came Windows ME (Millenium Edition), which wasn't so popular. You should have skipped it and waited for the next version, which was Windows XP - another great operating system. Vista, which came after it wasn't so hot (although it was unfairly criticised), and you should have skipped it and then upgraded to Windows 7. This is another first class operating system.

The same is true of other software products too and with new Linux distros appearing twice a year in some cases, you should skip a version and not accept every update as soon as it is released. Ubuntu 10.04 is fine if you've applied all the updates and 10.10 doesn't bring that many benefits. You should wait for 11.04 at least before upgrading.

OS X is slightly different either and Tiger to Leopard was a useful upgrade, but Leopard to Snow Leopard was more of a service pack. However, it was dirt cheap so there wasn't actually any reason to avoid it in this case, but if it had been full priced, then it would have been best to skip it and wait for the next version, Lion, which is under development.

Applications are similar and upgrading from v3 to v4 of some program may not always bring many benefits and sometimes you just get a few tweaks and a few new features. Skipping a version and waiting for v5 brings many more benefits.

You can upgrade the hardware every year if you want to constantly be at the cutting edge of technology, but you see a huge difference in performance unless there is a new generation of processor, such as Intel Core 2 Duo to Core i7/i5/i3. Don't be in too much of a hurry to upgrade, wait until there is a significant benefit, and then go for it.

Read More

Operating system updates - Windows vs Linux vs OS X

I run Windows and Linux on PCs and OS X on the Apple Mac. All operating systems are frequently updated with bug fixes, patches and occasionally feature additions too. Each OS has a built in automatic facility to check for the availability of new updates and to download and install them. The question is, which operating system has the biggest updates requiring the most time to download and install, which has the most updates, and which has the smallest and the least? Running Windows, Linux and OS X every day means that I get to download a lot of updates and it is interesting how each OS is different.

If there was a prize for the biggest updates then Apple would win hands down. It's updates are huge, really huge. Security Update 2010-007 is 240Mb, but that's not big, that's a small update for Apple. Mac OS X 10.6.5 Combo Update is 977Mb. Yes, that's near enough a gigabyte! A combo update is really like a service pack that contains everything but the kitchen sink and if you keep your system regularly updated then you only need the regular Mac OS X 10.6.5 Update at a mere 644Mb.

Those aren't the only updates - they're just the latest ones and there have been many more throughout the year. Every time Apple adds some minor feature to iTunes that I'll never use I'm prompted to download the whole installation package again and it's currently 90Mb. Apple seems incapable of updating a single module and if one tiny thing changes in the OS or an application you have to download and install the whole thing again.

Another irritation is that Apple's Software Update tends to hog the internet bandwidth and it really slows down the computer - for hours if you're on a slow internet connection.

I run Ubuntu Linux mostly and keep it up to date. I've had to change the default settings for the software update facility though, because there were just too many. Every week there was an update. In fact, Ubuntu has just announced that it will be updating daily! Do people really want this? Fortunately, Linux is a small and compact operating system that is a fraction of the size of Windows and OS X, and the updates aren't too big. Certainly nowhere near the size of Apple's.

It is common for people to complain about the number and size of Windows updates, but the complainers are often Apple or Linux fanatics. I have found that Windows 7 updates are less frequent than Linux and smaller than Apple's. In fact, I hardly notice them. Windows checks for updates and downloads them in the background without interfering with what you are doing or hogging the bandwidth. It clearly has the best OS update system and the only thing you notice is that occasionally when you shut down the computer, it takes a little longer because updates that Windows downloaded in the background without you noticing are being installed. You don't have to sit and watch it and you can walk away and leave it too, because it shuts down when it has finished. Linux and OS X require you to click buttons and restart.

So for simplicity, size and frequency, Windows 7 wins, Ubuntu Linux is second and OS X 10.6 is third.

Read More

Free anti virus for the Apple Mac

Sophos has just released Anti Virus for Mac Home Edition. This is interesting for two reasons and the first is that it is free of charge. As the name implies, it is for home users and it can't be used in a business environment, at least for free anyway. Browse the website and you will find editions for businesses that can be purchased. The second point is whether the Mac needs anti virus software in the first place. Are there any types of malware out there that are targeting the Apple Mac? Yes, but still there isn't much and it is not on the scale of what is around for Windows, so is it necessary?


It is free software and therefore it's not going to cost you anything to protect your Mac, so why not go ahead and install it. I've been using a Mac for years without any anti virus or anti spyware software and haven't been infected by any malware yet. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that I won't get caught tomorrow. However, there are a lot of unprotected Macs like mine and they don't get viruses. I think it's still too early to think about anti virus software.

One thing that might concern you is that you might pass on viruses to others. For example, you could download some software that is infected with a Windows virus. It would be inactive on the Mac, but you could pass on the file to a Windows user who then gets infected. Even more easily, an email you receive and forward to someone else could infect their computer. You might therefore want to install Mac anti virus software to protect your Windows friends (or maybe not!).

Read More

The ups and downs of web browser market shares

It is interesting to see which web browsers people are using and to look at the trends. Which browsers are gaining market share and which ones are losing? Websites gather information about their visitors, but don't worry, they can't tell who visits, just which browser they are using (amongst other information). It's just part of the functions of the web server software that's running. It's hard to say how representative this website's visitors are of the wider general public, but there is Windows, Linux and Apple Mac content here, so presumably there are a wide range of visitors using all three computing platforms. So who has the biggest market share, which browser are people flocking too and where are they coming from? There are clear winners and losers.

The data shown is for October 2010 and if you click the image you can view it full size.

Firefox is clearly the most popular web browser with a 34.76% share of the market. Interestingly, this has not changed since March 2010 and the figure is almost identical. The same is true of Safari and it's 28.41% market share is unchanged since March 2010.

When it comes to Internet Explorer and Google Chrome though, there is a clear winner and a loser. From March to October Internet Explorer's market share has fallen from 22.83% to 17.77% while Chrome has grown from 8.85% to 15.36%. That's quite a big swing, so while Firefox and Safari are unchanged, many people appear to be switching from Internet Explorer to Google Chrome. Opera is down 1% too, so some Opera users have also switched to Chrome too.

With Chrome almost doubling its market share since March, it's easy to see the trend. It's stealing Internet Explorer and Opera users.

Read More

One anti virus/spyware program is enough

When it comes to protection, surely you can't have too much, or can you? Well, yes you can actually and some people are reducing the performance of their computers by forcing it to work with layer upon layer of security. On several occasions I've been asked for advice about security and the person has revealed that they are running two or even three anti virus and anti spyware programs, or they run an anti virus program and then not realising that it also checks for spyware too, go and install an anti spyware program too or leave Windows Defender running at the same time. They also install a firewall and have Windows firewall running at the same time too. Two anti virus programs are not better than one and they aren't guaranteed to catch any more viruses. They just get in each others way and limit the performance of the computer.

When you choose an anti virus program, check whether it also scans for spyware too and if it does, don't install any anti spyware software and disable Windows Defender. When you install a firewall, turn off Windows Firewall because it's not needed.

If you're looking to buy anti virus/spyware software and want to know what is best, go to the Virus Bulletin website and check out the history for each vendor (free registration required).

Read More

Is Apple's MacBook Air a netbook?

After saying for a long time that it would never make a netbook computer, Apple, goes and launches one, or has it? Is the new MacBook Air with the 11in screen a netbook or not and how will it affect the existing netbook market? It's debatable whether the Air is a netbook or not and some people regard it as a netbook competitor, but others don't. It is half way between a netbook and a laptop and it has a bigger screen than netbooks, which are usually 10in. However, it is also smaller than a laptop and usually laptops have screens of 13in or more. Most netbooks come with 1Gb of RAM, but the Air has 2Gb and laptops often have 3 or 4Gb. It has an Intel Core 2 Duo processor, which isn't used in other netbooks and the Intel Atom is more common. The MacBook Air is therefore more like an ultra-light, compact and portable laptop.

There are three main selling points for netbooks and the first is that they are true computers. They can run all Windows software and you can attach all manner of peripherals to them, just like a regular computer. You can even format the hard disk drive and intall a different operating system, such as Linux. This is where netbooks differ from the iPad. The iPad isn't a stand-alone computer that can run the software and operating systems used by desktop computers. Of course, netbooks are low powered, so they are slow and you wouldn't want to edit 20 megapixel images in Photoshop, but power aside, they are true computers. The MacBook Air is just as capable of running desktop software as a MacBook and if anything, the Air is more powerful than the current crop of netbooks on the market. The MacBook Air is therefore a winner here.

The second selling point is that Netbooks are small and light. This makes them easy to carry and to store. The Air is slightly bigger than a standard netbook, but not by much and it is incredibly thin. Some netbooks are quite chunky, so here we have a draw and some people might prefer the smaller size of a netbook, but others may like thinness of the Air.

The third selling point of netbooks is their low price. They are the cheapest computers on the market and prices for bottom of the range models are much lower than for laptops. Top of the range netbooks can cost more than bottom of the range laptops and there is some overlap, but not much. If you don't want to spend much money on a computer then a netbook is clearly an option. What about the MacBook Air? It is actually surprisingly cheap for a MacBook and I expected it to cost a lot more, but it is still double the price of netbooks and it obviously won't appeal to the majority of people that buy netbooks.

The price of the MacBook Air puts it in a different market to netbooks and it is also competing with other MacBooks. MacBook and MacBook Air prices are in the same range and so you have a choice of  the light, but low powered MacBook Air, or a bigger and heavier, although far more powerful MacBook for the same price. You would have to really want that portability to choose an Air over a MacBook.

It's interesting to compare a Dell Inspiron M101z with the entry level MacBook Air. They both have 11in screens with a resolution of 1366 x 768 pixels, they both have 2Gb of RAM, they both have dual core processors (the Dell's is an AMD). The Dell has a 250Gb traditional hard disk, but the Air has a 64Gb solid state drive. The Dell has an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4225 graphics chipset and the Air has an Nvidia GeForce 320M.

So there's not much difference in the specifications of the two netbook/laptops or whatever you want to call them apart from the extra storage offered by the Dell. However, the price of the Dell is literally half that of the MacBook Air. The Dell is £429 and the MacBook Air is £849 including taxes and delivery. That's a huge price difference.

The MacBook will definitely appeal to people that want a small, light and ultra-portable MacBook, but it won't affect the Windows netbook market much. The price difference is just too great. That Dell is one of the more expensive netbooks and there are much cheaper ones and it was only chosen for this comparison because of the similarity in specifications.

Read More

Cloud based music from Apple?

There have been rumours for some time that Apple is working on a cloud based music service and that this is why it hasn't yet launched a streaming music service. Time is running out for the company and it needs to get this service going as soon as possible. One reason why timing is crucial is because the streaming music service, Spotify, has been doing very well in Europe for a few years now and it is said to be planning to launch in the US by the end of the year. Whether that end-of-year deadline is real or not, Spotify's ambition to launch in the US certainly is and it wants to do it as soon as possible.

The only problem is getting the music industry to agree to allow it. Apple hasn't revealed its plans, but it is fighting to stop Spotify launching and this may be because of the threat to its iTunes store sales, but it could also be because it is planning a similar service of its own. A cloud-based music service could be attractive for music companies, but giving Apple such a dominant position would not.

Apple's dream is for everyone to store their music not on their computers or on CDs, but in the cloud - some internet storage system that looks after everything for you. The advantage to the user is that you would be able to listen to your music on any device anywhere. You could stream it to whatever device you are using straight from the internet, or download and cache a certain amount for offline use when you don't have a Wi-Fi or mobile signal.

This is a great idea in theory, but knowing how much trouble I have with internet connections, it's not something I would want to rely on. The internet is brilliant when it works, but it's availability is patchy and the connection quality is variable. The Wi-Fi at a Starbucks I regularly visit has been down for a week and don't get me started on my home internet, it's been appalling lately.

From the music companies' point of view, a cloud based music service would be good because it would prevent people from pirating music. Copying and sharing music is one of the biggest irritations to the music industry and if everyone's music was stored online it would be difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to share it. Security within the music and internet service would enable it to work on your own devices, but prevent it from working with anyone else's if you tried to pass it on. What's more, it would be very easy for someone to flick a switch and block access to the cloud music service for anyone suspected of file sharing. One mouse click and the pirate's gone.

Of course, this wouldn't stop people from buying CDs, ripping them and sharing the files, so cloud based music would only be attractive to honest people and the pirates would continue as usual. However, music companies might see cloud music as being a step in the right direction.
The downside is that it would give Apple too much control and market share. The company is already the biggest seller of music and it sells more tracks online than music companies sell on CDs. Letting it also run a cloud based music service would give it even more power than it already has and it would take away power from the music companies. This is a bad idea and the music industry needs a competitive market, which weighs in Spotify's favour.

The music industry is stuck between a rock and a hard place as they say. The best solution for everyone would be for the music industry to do a deal with both Apple and Spotify. Competition and freedom of choice is always the best option.

Read More

Poor service from PayPal

On Sunday 3rd October I logged on to PayPal and withdrew some money, transferring it to my bank account. It was a small sum, but I needed the cash. The money was instantly removed from my PayPal account, but it did not appear in my bank account until 7th October. Where was my money between 3rd and 7th October? It wasn't in my PayPal account and it wasn't in my bank account. This would be understandable 20 or 30 years ago when everything was done by hand, but in 2010 all transactions are carried out by computers and are pretty much instantaneous. The only reason I can think of why my money disappears for four days is because PayPal puts a countdown timer on the transaction. It takes the money off you straight away and it goes into PayPal's bank account. The company can then do whatever it likes with it for free, including investing it and earning interest, and then when the countdown timer reaches zero, it carries out the transaction and passes the money on. This is poor service and we shouldn't stand for it. Every time PayPal takes several days to transfer money to your bank account you should write an email and complain.


My bank used to be slow and like PayPal it took several days to transfer money from one account to another. It's sharpened up its act and it now does it in two hours. It's not instantaneous, but two hours is OK. Several days is not! If enough of us complain about this shoddy business practice from PayPal we might get the company to improve its service. Sitting back and accepting it will not. Write that email, after all, it's your money that PayPal is grabbing and the company is preventing you from accessing it. Why should this be allowed?

Read More

Ignore tips that say your Mac doesn't need defragmenting

I was browsing the web today and came across a tip for the Mac: "100 Tips #28: How Do I Defrag My Mac?" The answer was, "You don’t. There’s no need to. The OS X filesystem is designed to look after files properly in the first place, so that’s one thing you don’t have to worry about." Well that's just nonsense and my tip is to ignore tips that tell you you don't need to defragment your Mac's hard disk drive. The Apple Mac's file system is good, but it is not that good and it does not eliminate fragmentation. One of the reasons Macs get slower as they get older is because file fragmentation builds up. If you don't believe me, here's how to check.

Go to Coriolis Systems and download the demo version of iDefrag. It won't defragment your Mac's hard disk drive (unless you buy the full version), but you can use it to analyse the disk and display a report on the fragmentation. I just tried it and here are the results:

As you can see, there's a file with 893 fragments, a couple more with over 500 and so on. Is this utility simply lying and displaying fake messages to get you to buy the software? No, you'll find other utilities if if search for them and they'll tell you the same thing. Files get fragmented on the Mac. It's a fact. Here's another view of the fragmentation analysis:

The strip along the bottom is a graphical display of the files on the disk and the red lines are the fragmented ones. Seems to me that there's quite a lot of fragmentation there.

Fragmented files are slower to access than contiguous files in which the contents are stored as a single block on the disk. That's why a Mac with a heavily fragmented disk runs more slowly than expected. Defragmenting the disk will speed it up.

This is well known of course, and OS X keeps track of key files and tries to prevent them from being fragmented, but it's fighting a losing battle and it can't automatically defrag every file. It just leaves many to get fragmented.

So what can you do? One thing would be to buy a disk defragmenter like iDefrag. There are others, usually as a component of a utility toolkit like Drive Genius. Another way is to use a free program like Carbon Copy Cloner to copy the Mac's disk to a USB disk, then wipe the internal disk and copy the USB disk back to the internal one.

Of course, you could simply ignore fragmentation. Disk drives are getting faster it takes less time to find file fragments than it used to. I remember my first hard disk drive, it was 20Mb. Yes, that's 20 megabytes not gigabytes! I benchmarked the read speed and it was 90k/sec! At that rate it took all day to load a fragmented file!

Read More

What Linux needs to do to be more popular

Linux distros are downloading in the background as I write this for a new group test of the operating system for a mag and one obvious thought is why Linux isn't more popular. Why is it that people choose to spend money on Windows PCs and even more money on Apple Macs when Linux is free and runs well on cheap hardware? There are several reasons and an obvious one is that all PCs are sold with Windows, so people get it by default. However, that can't be the reason why only 1% of PC users choose Linux because PC buyers also get Internet Explorer by default, but large numbers choose to use Firefox and Chrome instead. Here is what Linux needs to do to become more popular.

Firstly, there are far too many versions. Fedora, for example, is available in KDE, Gnome, LXDE, and XFCE desktop variations and in 32-bit and 64-bit forms. That's eight different versions and there are hundreds of different Linux distros, which means there are literally thousands of variations of Linux. There must be more people working on Linux than on Windows and for what? A 1% market share! It doesn't make sense.

The number of Linus distros confuses people who want to try Linux because they don't know which one to choose and there are so many to choose from. It also means that software developers can't support them all and software is often provided in just a handful of formats. If you don't choose one a popular Linux you'll find it hard to install software that isn't provided by the distro through its software package manager. Software written for one distro often doesn't work in another, which is very irritating.

Another irritation is that very few Linux distros can play videos or music, such as online streaming video from YouTube, movies on DVD, MP3 audio files and so on. A small number of Linux distros have got this sorted, such as Ubuntu and those based on it, but with others you have to spend time searching at Google looking for codecs and patches and upgrades and then typing in long and complex commands into the Terminal just to get audio and video working. People don't want this.

To make Linux more popular, the number of distros needs to be cut down to half a dozen. With Gnome and KDE desktops, 32 and 64-bit versions, this is still 24 different versions! However, it would be a big improvement on the current situation. With half a dozen versions, developers can get behind them and provide the support people want. Of course, it's never going to happen and all those other Linux distro creators aren't going to give up what they are doing.

Linux needs to get rid of the Terminal. This would force Linux developers to create software that can be installed, run, and configured with a few simple mouse clicks on buttons, menus and other graphical controls. Many Windows users and Apple Mac have never used the command prompt. It's not necessary, so why can't Linux developers get rid of it too? Of course, there are too many hard core Linux users that would never give it up.

Linux also needs to sort out its video and audio playing. Some have, but too many distros require you to search Google for the obscure commands required just to play your music or watch videos. Ubuntu and others have the problem sorted, so why can't other distros do this too?

Linux is a niche OS used by a few technical people and it will remain so until they start testing it on real people, not Linux experts. People that can point and click on a menu or button, but haven't a clue when it comes to the command line or how to solve video and audio problems.

Read More

Symantec opt-out trialware is a bad idea

Norton AntiVirus 2011 is now available and it looks interesting. For example, it now scans your Facebook page for bad links to dodgy websites that might infect your computer with malware. That could be a useful new feature and there are more. It sounds like it might be worth trying Norton AntiVirus and seeing if it's useful. When you go to download the free trial version though, there is a subtle difference that might put you off trying it and it could make you head for a rival product. Instead of a free trial that you can download and run for 30 days without paying, Symantec now provides the software as 30-day Opt-Out Trialware. What's this?

What it means is that you have to add the product to a shopping cart, go to the checkout and enter your credit card details before you can download the software. After 30 days you will be charged for the software and a one-year subscription to updates... unless you go online to the Symantec website and cancel.

No doubt the company is hoping that you will forget to cancel or that you will leave it too late and miss the deadline. I can see why Symantec would prefer this to the standard download-it-and-use-it-without-paying model, because it might reduce the number of downloads and increase the revenue.

However, it is a risky strategy and having to provide credit card details in order to try some software might put potential purchasers off. Imagine what it would be like if everyone did this. You'd have to supply every man and his dog on the web with your credit card details. I don't know about you, but I try a lot of software and I don't want to be giving out credit card details to all and sundry just to try the software. The more people that capture your credit card details, the more likely it is that the details will get into the wrong hands. What's more, if you try lots of programs you're bound to forget to cancel some on the right date and you'll end up out of pocket.

No, I don't like opt-out trialware. I much prefer the standard 30-day trial and don't mind giving my email address. In fact, registering your free trail often leads to special offers in your inbox giving you special discount offers when the trial has expired. They can be very tempting!

Read More

Clean Windows viruses with Norton Power Eraser

Security is a major concern in the Windows world and Windows users are constantly being told how many viruses there are, how infectious they are, and how you'll be infected within seconds of connecting to the internet unless you have the latest security software that's updated every minute, and even then you'll probably get infected. It's true that there are a lot of viruses, but I regularly use Windows PCs on the internet without any security software and nothing bad has happened. So where are all these nasty viruses? I wouldn't actually advise using PCs without protection, because there's always a risk, no matter how slight. A few free tools are all you need to keep safe on the web and Symantec has just released one to add to your security toolkit called Norton Power Eraser.

Norton Power Eraser is does not prevent malware from infecting the computer and it is purely a cleanup tool. It's an odd one because Symantec describes it as "a last-resort, extreme tool that may help you cleanup special types of security risks." I'm not sure why it's an extreme tool or why it should be used as a last resort.

If you think that your PC might be infected with malware, then download the program and run it (better still, download it and keep a copy on a CD or somewhere safe so it's ready to use). Click the Scan button and when it has finished it will display a list of malware that has been detected and/or suspicious files.

An interesting feature of this program is that it lists suspicious files and then allows you to upload them for further testing by Symantec. Presumably the company has a more comprehensive malware checker online. You get the result straight away, so you'll know within seconds if it really is malware or not.

It's free, so go ahead and download it. Add it to your toolkit of malware removal tools.

Read More

What Apple needs to do with Ping

Ping is Apple's new social networking service and it is an odd one because it is quite limited in some ways and it is not at all like Facebook. It is a bit like Twitter though. It's very early days with the service and no doubt there will be teething troubles and glitches for a while. It also looks very much like version 1.0 and it seriously needs improving if it is to be a success. It can't actually fail because there are too many Apple fans who buy into anything Apple produces, and also because there are so many iTunes users. Apparently up to 1 million people access iTunes on some days, so with numbers like that, Ping is bound to get a lot of people joining. Will they use it though? It's one thing signing up and taking a look around, but I've joined many social networking services, used them a few times and then never returned. Ping's membership will rocket as people try it out, but will they return and how often? I don't think I'll be using Ping much until it improves. Here's what Apple should do.

One thing that is holding Ping back is that you can only access it using iTunes. Every other social network is accessed using a web browser, but Ping is different. The question is whether it is better through iTunes and the answer has to be no. For a start, every Linux user is excluded because you can't get iTunes on Linux. OK, you can run Windows in a virtual machine, but that's not ideal. A lot of people access social networking services at work during coffee and lunch breaks or after hours. Work computers don't have iTunes on (unless they are Macs) and so most people at work are excluded. All smartphones have internet access and can therefore access social networking sites. There are Facebook and Twitter apps for all smartphones, and other services can be accessed through a web browser. Ping, though, is only available on one phone, the iPhone. This excludes everyone that doesn't have an iPhone.

At the very minimum Apple must enable some form or web access so everyone can use Ping. It would be nice to see apps for other phones, like Android, but this is unlikely given that it is a rival mobile operating system. Web browser access would be acceptable though.

At the moment, Ping looks like a subset of Twitter, with its ability to follow people, have people follow you, see short status update messages and so on. You can follow celebs on Twitter just as easily, and Twitter has much more breadth - you're not locked in to just music.

Ping needs some unique features to make it worthwhile using. It's main unique selling point is that it highlights music your friends  like or have bought, but the chances of me liking what my friends like is probably 25% at best. Everyone has unique tastes in music and my music collection is unique to me. Sometimes I find that a friend likes the same album or track, but just as often, or perhaps more often, they don't. I was asked what I wanted for my birthday some time ago and I said "The Myths and Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table." Everyone thought I was joking at first, then they just gave me weird looks when they realised I wasn't. Or how about another album in my collection, Django Reinhardt and the Quintette du Hot Club de France. So seeing what other people are buying or liking isn't always useful, and this is supposed to be Ping's USP.

Another fault of Ping is that it's hard to stop people posting junk messages and spam. Apparently it has attracted quite a lot of them and it's still very early days. Wait a bit and it could get a lot worse. Apple needs to do something about this and it might have to tighten up the rules, such as only people that have purchased music can post messages, which would avoid people signing up with fake details and posting spam.

Read More

Is Ping a social network or sales tool?

I'm sure there are regular meetings at the iTunes department of Apple and the topic up for discussion will be how to increase sales. It is, after all, any company's primary goal. A couple of years ago we had Genius, which examines your music library and then displays a panel on the right of iTunes of music you should buy. It's basically an excuse to display lots of Buy buttons and get people to buy more music. Now there's Ping. Thinly disguised as a social network, it examines your friends' music libraries, compares it with your own and then displays Buy buttons. It'll say "Joe Smith likes Lady Gaga" and it'll follow it with a button to buy the album or track, or "Joe Smith bought such and such a track," then it'll follow with a button to buy the track or album. I'm drowning in a sea of social networks, there are too far many and I wonder if I really need one that constantly nags me to buy stuff.

I had some trouble getting Ping up an running, but that's to be expected because it's only day 1 of Ping and as Steve Jobs said, sometimes a million people access iTunes in a single day. I think today is probably one of those days, so the errors can be forgiven. Accessing it from the iPhone is through the iTunes store app, and it seemed a bit limited at first sight, but then half an hour later it had slightly more in it. I had errors creating my profile and couldn't upload a photo, but then it magically appeared later. I think it's just slow getting going.

With millions of people trying to create accounts, you can expect the service to be like this for a day or two, so try it in a couple of days time when there are fewer people around. It will no doubt will get better over time.

I'm not sure I'll use it much myself, I waste too much time on social networks as it is and don't need another one.

Read More

iPhone and iPod Touch apps need to consider real people

Remember the Nintendo Game Boy? It was a hand-held gaming device that was released about 20 years ago, but was popular up until quite recently. It was a great device that sold over 100 million units during its life and at the time it was state-of-the-art. That doesn't mean it was perfect though and one of its limitations was that it had a small screen. It was only about two and a half inches and it was difficult to see. This led to a thriving market for clip-on magnifying glasses. They were plastic gadgets that clipped onto the Game Boy and magnified the screen so you could actually see what was on it. I need one for the iPhone! Developers either have the eyes of a hawk or they don't test the apps on a real iPhone/iPod Touch with real people. Some of the text is so small I struggle to read it. I've even resorted to holding the phone in one hand and a magnifying glass in the other! You try using an app like that!

iPhone and iPod Touch developers need to consider real people when they develop their apps. Not everyone has perfect eyesight and incredibly small text can be hard and sometimes impossible to read. My eyesight is fine for reading and I can read any newspaper, magazine, book, computer screen and so on, but some apps on my iPhone are beyond the resolution of my retinas. Just because the iPhone 4 has a super high resolution 'retina' screen it doesn't mean it's OK for developers to make text even smaller. There comes a point where you start to lose people.

Small text is just one irritation with some (not all) apps. How often have you run a new app and jabbed a finger at random all over the screen just to see what happens? It's sometimes not obvious what to do in an app, what hotspots their are, how to navigate from one part of the app to another, and so on. Desktop applications have buttons and menus, but iPhone/iPod Touch apps aren't so clear and sometimes I'm reduced to random poking to see what happens.

This could be solved by having instructions or help with an app that actually told you how to use it. Many do, of course, but a lot don't. At one time a printed manual used to be supplied with software, then that was dropped and a help file or on-screen manual was supplied. Too often with apps on the iPhone/iPod Touch there's nothing at all. You're on your own and you have to guess how to use an app.

There are lots of good apps in the iTunes store of course, but there's still room for improvement.

Read More

The new 7in iPad - real or rumour?

Over the last few days there has been an increasing number of rumours about the existence of a new iPad with a 7in screen. There is certainly no shortage of rumours about Apple products and this is partly because the company is so secretive. It works hard to ensure that no information is leaked to the public, so it's impossible to know whether there is any substance in these rumours. However, it doesn't stop everyone speculating and we can ask whether a 7in iPad makes sense. Does it fit in with the product range? Would it boost sales? What are the implications for app developers? Will existing apps work or will we have yet another category in the app store?

A 7in iPad does actually make sense and if Apple keeps the screen resolution the same as either the iPhone or iPad then all existing apps should work without any modification. The iPad currently has a resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels and if a 'retina' type display is used in the 7in iPad as with the iPhone, then the 7in iPad would be able to run iPad apps. They will simply look slightly smaller, but also super sharp. Another alternative, but a less attractive one, would be to use the iPhone 4's display resolution. This is 960 x 640 pixels and it's incredibly sharp on the iPhone. It could be used on a 7in iPad and it would give a similar display quality (dots per inch) to the current iPad. A retina display would clearly be best though.

From a hardware and software point of view, a 7in iPad is obviously do-able. It would take very little effort indeed and it's not like designing a tablet from scratch. Would it fit in with the current iPhone, iPod and iPad range though? Is there a need for it or a demand for it?

Despite all the millions of iPad shipped I haven't yet seen anyone carrying one around or using one in public. Where are they all? Do people just use them at home? I don't think it's as portable or as useful as it could be because it's just a bit too big and heavy. It's great when you're sitting on the couch in front of the TV and want to look something up on the web, but it's not that portable and if you really want a portable device that does everything then there is the Macbook Air (and there are rumours of a new version of that in the pipeline too). It can be tiring to hold when gaming or reading for any length of time unless you rest it on something.

A 7in iPad would not fit the pocket as well as an iPod Touch or an iPhone, but it would be much smaller and lighter than the current iPad. It would have the same screen resolution and run the same iPad apps, but it might fit a large jacket pocket and it would certainly fit a small bag. It makes more sense to me than the current model.

A 7in iPad might even be cheaper too, although I wouldn't bet on it because the smaller you try to make something, the more it costs to make. However, I don't think that you could price them exactly the same because the public might perceive a smaller iPad as being a lower spec model that should be cheaper. It might therefore be priced at $100/£50 less than current prices. That seems possible.

So will there be a 7in iPad? The current iPad has been more successful than most people (non-Apple fans that is) expected and it would be daft not to capitalise on that and increase the range of models offered. I would think that the rumours are true.

Read More

Genius for the app store is, well, genius

Tweet

I have never been a fan of the Genius feature in iTunes for several different reasons. One is that the Genius panel on the right of the iTunes window is just an advert. It's little more than an attempt to get me to buy more music at the store. Sometimes the recommendations bear no relation to the track I've selected in my library and sometimes among the tracks it recommends are tracks that I already have.  It doesn't take a genius to check whether I already have a track before showing an advert to buy it. Genius playlists also seem uncannily like a Smart Playlists. Create a Smart Playlist by selecting tracks at random within a genre and then compare it to the playlist created by the Genius feature. If I choose a rock song and click Genius then I get 25 random rock songs with a couple of pop thrown in - there's always a couple of wildcards. I can do that with the Smart Playlist feature. Genius in the app store on the iPhone and iPod Touch is great though and I love it. Genius is actually useful at last.

There are several reasons why it works in the app store and one important one is that many apps for the iPhone and iPod Touch are free. So Genius isn't just trying to part me from my hard-earned money. Free apps are included in the Genius recommendations along with the paid apps. (There's a Genius tab when you go to the Featured section of the apps store on the iPhone/iPod Touch and it's a slight irritation that it's not also in iTunes on the computer, but browsing on the mobile is fine.)

It's interesting that Genius shows what each recommendation is based on and sometimes the link is obvious, for example, if you have a news app then it will recommend another news app. However, sometimes it recommends a completely random app and there's no link at all. I've got Dropbox and it recommended Digits Calculator based on this. What's the link between cloud based online storage and a pocket calculator? I've got Dictionary.com and it recommended Alphabet Tracing, which is a kids app that teaches them to draw the letters of the alphabet on the screen. Apart from them both containing letters, where's the link?

I actually don't mind these random recommendations. There are 200,000+ apps in the app store and many people probably don't browse beyond the featured, top selling, top grossing, top free and other top lists. A few hundred at most. Genius often picks apps at random and you'll get to see apps you probably wouldn't normally see. What's more, they might even be free. Genius in the app store is great. Forget Genius though, just give me a Random button or an I'm Feeling Lucky button.

Read More

FaceTime for new iPod Touch?

September is usually the time of year that Apple introduces new iPod models, presumably to cash in on the pre-Christmas buying spree that takes place each year. However, there have been rumours that this year will be different and that the new iPod line-up will be announced mid-August. Among the rumoured new features are a front-facing camera that will enable iPod Touch users to call other iPod Touch Users and iPhone 4 users with FaceTime. FaceTime, of course, is the video calling facility in iPhone 4 and it's brilliant, but so few people have iPhone 4s that it's hard to find someone to chat to. Adding iPod Touch users will help, but Apple needs to go further.

Imagine you have a brand new phone, but that it is incompatible with everyone else's phone. Who are you going to call? Only those few people that have the same brand and model of phone as you, nd that's not very many. It would be pointless. That's pretty much how FaceTime is right now. It's great if all your mates have iPhone 4s, but useless if they don't.

The way to get FaceTime working is to make it available everywhere and this is what Apple should do if it wants to make a success of the technology. Putting a front-facing camera on the iPod Touch and adding FaceTime is a step in the right direction and this will increase the number of people that are FaceTime-capable. But why not go further?

Macs have front-facing cameras, so why not release a FaceTime application for the Mac? This would mean that anyone with a Mac can video call anyone with an iPod Touch or iPhone 4 and vice versa (providing you both have Wi-Fi connections). The number of FaceTime users would very quickly grow as Mac users installed FaceTime and the more people that have it, the more people will use it. Apple could own the video calling market.

FaceTime could be a great unique selling point for Apple devices and it would encourage even more people to switch. How hard can it be to put FaceTime on a Mac? It's got the hardware and the Wi-Fi connection, so what's holding it back?

Read More

Apple's long term plans

I was reading the news this morning and there was a story on Cnet that said the next iPad is likely to have a camera.  There was a huge amount of speculation about this before the iPad was launched and it was one of the most desired features. Well, I can confirm that a future iPad will definitely have a camera. It's a certainty. What isn't so certain though is when we'll see a camera in the iPad and what it will be capable of. Apple largely sells to existing customers and to keep them coming back and buying new products, it introduces new features and functions gradually rather than all at once. The company has a long term plan and you can see this with the iPhone. The original model had a 2 megapixel camera that could only take photos. The next generation could also take videos, the next one had a 3 megapixel camera, and now we have a 5 megapixel camera. We also have cameras front and back. This isn't cutting edge technology, this is Apple holding back features so they can be introduced gradually at regular intervals to make existing owners upgrade.

The iPad could easily have had a camera in it. After all, it's old technology and every mobile phone has one (or two) and even Apple's iPhone has cameras, so it knows how to do it. There is absolutely no technical reason why the iPad could not have had a camera and it must surely have been because it is part of a long term plan. The company will introduce features gradually so that people that bought the original iPad will upgrade to subsequent models. Apple's long term plan could look like this: iPad 1 with no camera, iPad 2 with low resolution webcam that shoots video, iPad 3 with higher resolution camera that shoots photos too, iPad 4 with front and back cameras like the iPhone.

I don't know if this is the exact order that features will be added, but you can bet that it will look something like this. We may well see new iPads introduced on a yearly basis as with the iPhone, with a gradual introduction of new features. It will sell mostly to the same people - after all, which iPad owner wouldn't want a new one with a camera in? Of course, not all sales are to existing owners and Apple fans, and as new features are added the device will become more attractive to the wider world. Most sales will be to Apple fans though.

The iPad could have had a camera from the start, but Apple chose not to put one in. It's all part of the company's long term plan to keep sales going as long as possible. It's a brilliant business plan, but it's irritating as a consumer. I'm holding off buying an iPad until it has all the features I need. I may have to wait several generations, but there's sure to be one at some point down the line. Maybe it'll be an iPad 3 or 4. We'll have to wait and see.

Read More

How to get your free iPhone 4 case

Ever since Apple announced at a press conference recently that it was giving away free bumpers for iPhone 4 owners, I've wondered how this was actually going to take place. Do you order one from the Apple website? Call in at an Apple store? Well, this morning I got an email from Apple notifying me that I could apply for a free iPhone 4 case. You do it using an app on the iTunes store. Go to the App Store on your iPhone and search for 'iPhone case'. You'll see the free app and you can install it on your phone.

Run it and it displays around half a dozen different cases from various suppliers. They are all similar, but there are slight variations, such as smokey black or clear, and so on. You can browse the different models, view some info on it and see a gallery showing how your iPhone will look with it on. It's quite nicely done and there is plenty of choice of models. You then select the one you want and it's ordered for you. Shipping estimates are from 3 weeks up to 8 weeks. There's likely to be a lot of orders placed for these, so get yours ordered asap or you'll end up at the back of the queue with an 8-week delivery.

Read More

iTunes store drives me nuts, but what's the alternative?

The iTunes store has some good features, but also some terrible ones that drive people nuts. For example, run iTunes on the Mac or PC and go to the App Store to look for some apps for your iPhone or iPod Touch. If you browse the apps, such as each category, the top free or paid, and so on, you'll find that there are no ratings. If thousands of people have given an app a 1-star rating then I don't want it. It's a dud. But you can't tell from the iTunes store unless you click on an app, wait for the page to load, then scroll down it to the ratings near the bottom. Clicking back and forth and scrolling trying to find an app with a half decent rating drives me nuts. Browsing on the iPhone/iPod Touch is actually slightly better because ratings are shown in in the app listings, so why are they not there in iTunes on the computer? That's not the only problem.

Browse through the top free apps and you'll find some that have terrible ratings, so how come they are in the top apps lists? Today Zombie Duck Hunt is the number 2 top free app. It got five stars from 107 people and one star from 539 people. If we say that three stars is an average rating then 136 people think it's above average and 671 think it's below average. So how is it number 2 in the top free app list? That's with the sort set to best-sellers. It's not sold, it's free, so does it mean most downloaded apps and not the best selling? That would make more sense because people might download it thinking that it's free, so I'll try it and even if it's rubbish it hasn't cost me anything. I personally don't download anything that has five times more people rating it a one star than five stars.

Go to the Top Grossing Apps list and down at number 20 is MyCarCheck (I'm using the UK iTunes store - your's might be different). MyCarCheck is free, so how is it on the top grossing list? Zombie Farm is down at 66 on the top grossing list too and it's another free app. So is Tap Fish at 69, Godfinger at 78 and others. Surely top grossing apps are the ones that are making the most money?

There are 200,000 apps in the app store, or so Apple tells us, but how many have you seen? You've probably browsed the top free and paid in each category, which is about 100 apps in 20 categories, so that's about 2,000 apps. This means there are 198,000 you haven't seen. That's a huge number, so where are they? How can you access them?

iTunes is a poor way to find apps for the iPhone and iPod Touch, but we're stuck with it. Apple really needs to improve the app store navigation and provide more and better ways to browse apps. I'm sick of seeing the same old apps in the top whatever lists and there are 198,000 somewhere that I can't find. Apps stay at the top because people can't find any others and they end up downloading what everyone else is downloading. This keeps the same apps on the top lists and is self perpetuating.

Sorting by downloads, rating, name, release date would help, but also historic data like the top downloads for each month would be good. New and recently updated lists would also be useful, as would editor's ratings.

Read More

New iPhone FaceTime ads, but have you used it?

The number of people with smartphones is a fraction of the total number of people with mobile phones. The number of people with iPhones is a fraction of the number of people with smartphones. The number of people with iPhone 4s is a fraction of the number of people with iPhones. The number of people with iPhone 4s that are currently connected to a Wi-Fi hotspot is a fraction of the number of people with iPhone 4s. And the number of people that you actually want to speak to face to face via a video call is a fraction of that. A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of... well, you get the idea. Is it any wonder that I've have my iPhone 4 nearly three weeks and haven't yet made a single FaceTime call?

FaceTime is brilliant - when it works. The problem is that it only works in very specific circumstances and you virtually have to pre-arrange it. It's purely an iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 application and even then it only works when you are connected to the internet via Wi-Fi. So you have to make sure that the person you want to speak to has bought an iPhone 4 and they are on Wi-Fi at the exact time that you want to call them via FaceTime.

Getting people to buy iPhone 4s isn't easy given that they are one of the most expensive mobile phones available. Some people can't afford it and others don't want to spend that much on a phone. Even if they do buy one, the chances are that when you call them they won't be on Wi-Fi when you call them. If only Apple had chosen an open standard that was on most, if not all smartphones, and it worked over 3G, it would be much more usable. Maybe on a future iPhone FaceTime will work on 3G, but half the time I don't have a 3G signal either.

Adverts promoting FaceTime on the iPhone 4 are on prime time TV right now and four new ads have just been launched, so Apple is pushing it hard. It has too push it like crazy because FaceTime will only be really useful when large numbers of people have FaceTime-capable phones.

I'm not criticising Apple here and the problem is an old one. When you invent a communication technology, it only works when everyone has it. For example, when Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone it was completely useless. After all, who would he call since he was the only person in the world that had a telephone? It was only years later that the telephone actually became useful.

FaceTime is in the same boat and right now it's useless. Not because it's a bad idea, but because so few people have it. In a few years time we might all be using it on a daily basis to talk to everyone. Right now though, it's the most publicised feature of the iPhone, but the least used.

Read More

iPhone 4 reception problems

There have been lots of news stories and blogs about reception problems and signal strength with the new Apple iPhone 4. Read this Mashable article or this Engadget story for example. There's even a video clip showing the problem and it looks serious. I was out with my iPhone when I first read this, so I immediately tried it. All the bars were showing and even using two hands to completely cover the phone, I couldn't get the signal strength indicator to change at all. The signal must have been too strong. I tried it later at home where the signal is weaker and managed to get the signal strength bars to drop by wrapping my hand around the base of the phone. It wasn't a natural way to hold it though. I got my BlackBerry out and wrapped my hand around it and the bars dropped as the signal was blocked just the same. So this isn't an iPhone problem, it's a mobile phone problem. Try it with some other mobiles and you'll probably see a similar effect.

Whether this is worse with the iPhone 4 than with other mobiles is hard to say without testing them all. And really you've got to hold the phone to your ear rather than to a video camera because your grip is different.

Apparently most, if not all mobile phones have the antenna in the bottom of the phone because it is then as far away from your brain as possible when making a call. Of course, your hand is at the bottom of the phone and not the top, which makes it bad for reception, but putting the antenna in the top would fry your brain.

Read More

The death of Microsoft

The news that apple has sold 3 million iPads has led to lots of people predicting the death of Microsoft and that the Windows PC era is over. It's just a matter of time before Microsoft plumets into oblivion. The iPad is the computer we'll all be using from now on and it will completely replace the desktop and laptop computer. This couldn't be further from the truth. Anyone that has bought an iPad will know that when you take it out of the box and turn it on, the first thing it tells you to do is to plug it into a computer and sync with iTunes to activate it. And what's the cheapest way to do this? Using a Windows PC! Won't iPad sales therefore boost Windows PC sales?

The iPad is not a stand-alone device and it cannot be used unless you first buy a computer. Isn't it odd that you have to buy a computer, which plays games, gets your email, browses the web, and so on, before you can use an iPad that plays games, gets your email and browses the web?

Reports of Microsoft's death are clearly exaggerated. There are lots of things the iPad cannot do and for them you need a computer. When Apple produces an iPad that works as a stand-alone device that doesn't require a computer, then we can talk about the death of the computer. Maybe several generations down the line the iPad will be a stand-alone device, but predicting what Apple will do in the future is impossible.

Read More

Adroid vs iOS - it's Microsoft vs Apple all over again

I was reading an interesting article on the PC World website called It's Android vs. Apple: Will You Switch Sides? It's all about who has the best phones, who will grab the market share, one person's experiences with an iPhone and trying to order the latest iPhone 4. It got me thinking about the mobile phone market and it is beginning to look like the old Microsoft vs Apple battle all over again, but this time Apple is taking on Google with its Android OS. It will loose this battle just as it lost against Microsoft and for the same reasons.

Microsoft designed Windows to run on any computer and there are hundreds, if not thousands of PC makers worldwide. There are therefore thousands of Windows PCs to choose from and new models appear every month, and probably every week or even every day from someone somewhere in the world. Apple has a small number of high priced computers that run OS X. It's not surprising that the market share is around 95 in Microsoft's favour (Apple's US share is higher than its global share though, but not much higher). Apple updates its computers infrequently.

The same situation is developing in the mobile phone world. Google has designed Android to run on any hardware and most, if not all mobile phone makers are developing Android phones. Lots of them are planned for this year, and LG alone is rumoured to have 20 in the pipeline. Not all Android phones are cheap, but some of them are, and every month or even every week there will be a new one from someone somewhere. They'll flood the market. Apple has just one high priced phone that it updates once a year (and only one carrier in the US too). How can Apple compete?

The mobile phone market isn't the PC market and there are other players too, such as BlackBerry and Microsoft's new mobile OS. However, because there will be so many competitors offering so many different models and prices, with new ones coming up with exciting new features, Apple will never grab the largest share of the market. It will do well and it deserves to because the iPhone is a great mobile, but it might just become a niche product like the Mac instead of a mass-market one. There are just too many alternatives.

Read More

Two useful free tools for Windows

There are lots of free utilities for Windows and some of them are excellent. The problem is that hardly anyone knows about them because they are tucked away on some website in a corner of the web that people seldom visit. They deserve a bit of publicity so here are a couple of great utilities that you can download and use for free. The first is PC Usage Viewer and the second is ADS Scanner. Both are from Pointstone Software.

PC Usage Viewer makes use of the fact that Windows logs whenever you start up and shut down the computer. It reads this information and then displays it in a calendar view that shows when and for how long you have used the computer. I'm not sure what you would use this information for, but it's interesting to see how much use the computer has had, how many hours it has been running and so on.

The second utility is ADS Scanner and ADS stands for Alternate Data Stream. It is a hidden place where programs or data can be stored that are not visible by normal means. Many programs store information in alternate data streams in addition to the normal file storage that you can see in Windows Explorer. It is a bit like the data and resource forks that the Apple filing system uses.



There are lots of tools that offer to securely delete files on the disk drive that you don't want others to be able to access, but do they also delete the associated alternate data stream? Private information could remain in this storage area, so it is worth checking before you use or buy this type of software.

It is possible for malware to hide in alternate data streams too and your anti spyware and anti virus software should look for alternate data streams and check them for malware. If it isn't doing this, then you aren't fully protected.

ADS Scanner will scan the files on disk and then display the alternate data streams associated with them. You can then select them and view the contents. Of course, most are safe and it's a legitimate way to store data. What you need to look out for is malware using it.

Read More

Can Apple make video calling work in iPhone 4?

It has been possible to make video calls for a long time and mobile phones with video capabilities have been around for years, but when did you last make a video call? You've probably never made one. In fact, your current mobile phone may not even have video call capabilities. It's not because of any technical limitations, it's just that mobile phone manufacturers tried it and nobody wanted it. I remember the TV ads promoting mobile phones with video calling, but the devices never took off. Mind you, 10 years ago the mobiles and networks were a lot less capable than they are now. Apple's new iPhone 4 has built in video calling capabilities called FaceTime, so can the company do what everyone else has tried and failed at? Do the networks and mobiles now have the capabilities to make this a feature you'll really use or will it continue to be ignored?

FaceTime is in some ways brilliant and it is the best video calling capability from a mobile phone yet, but it is unlikely to be a feature that you will use very often and it probably won't change the world. The reason is because of its limitations.

The first is that this is an iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 feature only. Both you and the person you are calling must have iPhone 4s. This will be the biggest limitation and different people like different phones, so it is quite likely that half the people you know won't have iPhones. Of the people you know that do have iPhones, how many will immediately upgrade to the latest version 4? Probably very few initially, although over time as people change their phones, some may opt for the iPhone 4. It's going to be quite some time before a significant number of the people in your contact book have iPhone 4s.

The second limitation is that it only works over Wi-Fi. Not only do you have to be connected to a Wi-Fi hotspot, but also the person you are calling too. What are the chances of you both being connected to a Wi-Fi hotspot at the same time? You would probably have to arrange for both you and the other person to be at a certain place at a certain time. For example, you could call home from a hotel if you are away traveling say, but really this is only slightly more convenient than a video call using your computer and webcam.

FaceTime is definitely a step in the right direction and someone has to take the first step. Apple may kick-start video calling in the long term even if it's not going to be used much right now. Just imagine if this feature was on all mobile phones and it wasn't limited to just Wi-Fi. People then might just use it. Of course, you won't always want to speak face to face with people, so most calls will still be voice only, but occasionally being able to use video calling and not having to think about whether the other person has an iPhone 4 and they are at a Wi-Fi hotspot would be cool.

I suspect that in the future the vast majority of calls will still be voice only and video calling will only ever be used to call your closest relatives when they are either working or living far away, a bit like the way people use their computer and webcam today.

Read More

Safari 5's new reader view

While Steve Jobs was talking up the latest iPhone at WWDC, Apple quietly released a new version of the Safari web browser for Windows and the Mac. This wasn't a point release indicating a few minor bug fixes, but a whole new version. Version 5 has some fantastic new features like the new Reader view. It's a brilliant idea that works like a dream for some, but it is also very worrying and it may provoke criticism from others. It might even get taken out.

First the good news - it lets you browse the web without adverts. Now the bad news - many websites depend on adverts to generate the revenue to enable them to exist. If people can view web pages without the ads then ad revenue with fall and websites could go bust, or perhaps turn to a different model, such as subscription only.

From a user's perspective, it is a great feature. Safari detects when you are on a web page that has an article. It's not clear how it does this, but it must have some fuzzy algorithms to detect the main page content and distinguish it from the rest of the page components. When it detects an article, a Reader button appears in the address box at the top of the browser and clicking it opens a pane that displays just the article. The rest is hidden or dimmed.

It's the best idea to be added to web browsers for ages and it's brilliant being able to focus on the main content of a web page without all the rubbish that gets in the way like buttons, adverts, animations and so on. On this page, for example, you get a clear and simple display of the text without all the other components on it. You can resize the text, email it, print it and so on. It's amazing.

The downside is that it hides the adverts and if you're not seeing the adverts or clicking on them, then no revenue is generated by the page. Websites cost money to create and maintain and big websites cost big money. What's the point if it doesn't make any money and is just costing you?

As a webmaster, what is the point of me designing web pages and sticking to accepted standards so that they are displayed in a particular way if Safari will simply take my content and display it in a completely different way? It's redesigning my web pages and redisplaying the contents in a way that I do not want or desire. Not only do web designers now have to think about how web pages will display in different web browsers like Internet Explorer, Chrome and Firefox, but also the way that Safari displays it in Reader view. It unnecessarily complicates matters for web designers and it's a feature that will not be liked. I want web pages to be displayed how I want and I don't want Safari to rewrite it and display it in some other completely different way. This is bad news for websites, webmasters and web designers.

Just think of all those iPhone and iPad and iPod Touches that don't display Flash content, some of which is advertising, and now Reader view in Safari on desktop and laptop computers will hide the rest of the adverts. This could seriously affect some websites.

Safari has a small market share, mainly because most computers on the internet are running Windows and Safari isn't that popular on Windows. It's the default for Mac users though and so Mac websites will feel the impact of Safari 5 first. Will they find that ad revenue declines as Mac users upgrade to Safari 5? How will this affect them? Will web pages be redesigned to try to get around the new Reader feature of Safari? Is it even possible? Will companies complain to Apple and put pressure on it to disable the Reader view? Maybe there's a hidden feature, like a special tag, that enables website developers to disable Reader view? It's possible, and probably desirable too. At least by website owners.

It's too early to say what will happen, but this is a feature that's worth watching and seeing how people react to it.

Read More

OSX/OpinionSpy spyware in Mac apps

There is no doubt that the Mac is more secure than Windows computers, but this isn't because the operating system is more secure, but because hardly anyone bothers to create spyware and viruses for the Mac. It's mostly security through obscurity. It's not the whole reason of course, but the small number of Macs relative the Windows PCs plays a big part in its security. As the Mac's popularity increases, we'll see more security threats and you'll need to be on your guard. Intego, a security company, has recently found OSX/OnionSpy Spyware in many Mac apps at popular Mac download websites. Read the security memo here and see the list of infected apps here.

Of course, we are nowhere near the situation that exists on Windows and there is still so little malware for the Mac that it's not time to panic and buy tons of security software. The most worrying aspect of this malware outbreak is that that the OSX/OnionSpy Spyware has been found at websites like Version Tracker and Softpedia, which you would assume were trustworthy.

It is common for big software distribution websites to routinely scan Windows files for malware before they are posted and I've not found any malware in the tons of Windows software I've downloaded from them over the years. If you can't trust sites like Version Tracker and Softpedia for Mac software then is it worth using them? I think we need some reassurance from these sites that the Mac software they post has been checked for malware. It certainly makes you think twice about downloading an app for your Mac from either of them.

Read More

Time to upgrade VirtualBox

VirtualBox is a great software application that enables you to run other operating systems on your computer. It enables you to run any version of Windows on a Linux PC or on your Apple Mac, or to run Linux on a Windows PC or a Mac. You can even run Windows on a Windows PC, such as Windows 7 on Vista or vice versa. It's perfect for running Windows software on your Linux PC or Mac, or for testing software before installing it on your Windows PC. A couple of weeks ago, version 3.2.0 of the software was released and it has some new features that make it worthwhile upgrading.

There are two very closely related versions of VirtualBox and one is open source and the other is from Oracle. Both are free, but of the two, the Oracle one is slightly better. It used to be a Sun project, but when Oracle bought Sun, it was renamed to Oracle VM VirtualBox.

Version 3.2.0 is available for Windows, Mac and various Linux distros, including the brand new Ubuntu 10.04.

The new features include support for the latest Intel Core i5 and i7 processors, better switching between the guest OS and host with 25% faster networking, new virtual disk subsystem with improved performance, remote video acceleration, up to eight virtual monitors, merging snapshots while the virtual machine is running, and more. You can even run OS X server in a virtual machine on a Mac.

If you've not tried it, take a look at this Mac article, this, this or this Linux article, or even this old article about Microsoft Virtual PC, which works in a similar way.

Read More

What makes Flash crash?

Adobe's Flash has had a lot of bad publicity lately, mainly from Apple, but also from Microsoft too. Both companies report that it is the cause of many of the crashes that users experience on both Windows and Mac OS X. Ed Bott has written a couple of interesting articles too and How secure is Flash? Here's what Adobe won't tell you, and Sorry, Adobe: Flash is the new Vista are well worth reading. In one of those articles he says that Flash crashes once or twice a day on his wife's computer. He didn't say whether his computer was OK, but presumably it was or he would have said. I don't have any problems on my computer and Flash doesn't crash. The question is, what makes Flash so unstable on some computers, but not others?

I don't know what the answer to this is, but surely it must have something to do with other software destabilising it. It is unlikely to be the hardware because Steve Jobs has said that Flash crashes a lot on the Mac and nowhere is the hardware more tightly controlled. It's not like the Windows world where anyone can put Windows on any combination of hardware components cobbled together in someone's back bedroom by someone that barely knows how to assemble a computer. It's got to be software.

Perhaps it is some other web browser plug-ins and Flash clashes with something else that is installed. I'm not a fan of browser plug-ins, add-ons and toolbars and have hardly anything installed. Maybe that's why I don't get any Flash crashes. (The one plug-in on my Mac is ClickToFlash, which lets me run Flash only when I need it.)

As a general rule of thumb, it's always a good idea to install the minimum of software and the more you have, the worse the computer sometimes becomes. These days I often install software into a virtual machine. The virtual machines run either Windows or Linux and they run on Windows and Linux PCs, so I can run Windows on a Linux PC, Linux on a Windows PC, Windows on Windows (here) and Linux on Linux, and both Windows and Linux on a Mac (see here). (It would be great if OS X ran in a virtual machine too.) I only install software on the computer if I've tested it first and it is indispensable.

Read More

iPad UK prices - are they too high?

There is no doubt that the Apple iPad has been a big success over in the US, with 1 million units sold in 28 days and the big question now is how successful it will be in the rest of the world. We've been waiting for shipping dates and prices for ages, but now we know. You can get your iPad in the UK on 28th May, with the cheapest model (16Gb Wi-Fi) costing £429 and the top of the range model (64Gb 3G) costing £699. At today's exchange rate, that's US $636 for the cheapest and an eye-watering US $1,038 for the top one (don't forget the monthly data plan too). That's more than (the US price of) a MacBook!

(The figures look worse because UK prices include sales tax, but US prices don't. However, subtract the sales tax and UK prices are still $50 more than US prices. We pay also 17.5% sales tax, which is double most US states' sales taxes, so add $50 to the base price and then double the sales tax, and you've got quite an expensive iPad here in the UK.)

I spent exactly £429 at Christmas and got a new PC with 2.5GHz quad-core processor, 4Gb RAM, 1Tb hard disk etc. Hmm, quad-core power PC that does everything or iPad that's, well, cool and fun, but also limited.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the iPad is a brilliant device and the best tablet I have ever seen. Nothing comes close, but although it is highly desirable, it is also just a luxury item. I can argue that I couldn't live without my smartphone and that it is essential. I can argue that I couldn't manage without my laptop and that it is essential. But an iPad. Sure it would be nice to have one, but it is a device I can live without because I can do everything I need to right now.

If I had lots of money to spend on luxury items then yes I'd go out and buy an iPad, but I don't and that's why I won't be queueing up on May 28th at the nearest Apple store. Unless I suddenly come into a lot of money, that is. It's a lottery rollover this Wednesday, I think I might chance a pound on it.

Sales predictions

With much higher prices here in the UK, and probably the rest of the world too, there probably won't big as big a demand for iPad. It took a week for Apple to sell the first half million iPads, but it then took three weeks to sell the second half million, so sales are falling every day. They'll be boosted by UK and other international sales at the end of May, but I wonder what sales will be like in 6 months or a year from now when everyone that wants one has bought one.

You can change mobile phones quite easily because they are subsidised and even free on some contracts, and iPods are cheap enough to replace frequently anyway, but a £699 iPad ($1,038) is too expensive to change every year or even two years. It's more like a computer and it will have to last three to five years before it is replaced. This will inevitably have an impact on long term sales. Those people that are predicting iPhone-like sales of 10 million units a year are wrong. Initial sales will undoubtedly be high, but then they'll fall to Mac-like figures at best.

Read More

iPad targeted by malware

BitDefender has posted a news story that warns about a new malware scam that targets the new Apple iPad: BitDefender Warns of Malware Targeting iPad Users via iTunes Update. This is unusual, but it is actually nothing new and it is really just a variation of an old scam. It's been used before and this article describes how a message from Twitter can lead to the installation of Malware on Windows PCs. What's new and different about the iPad scam is that the subject of the email prompts you to download and install an update to iTunes in order to update the iPad.

This type of scam will reappear in the future with a different subject, but the aim is always the same - to get you to install malware. The weakest link in any security system is actually people. Always treat any email that tells you to click a link as highly suspicious. In this case, the solution would be to run iTunes on your computer and then use the menu option to check for updates. There's no need to click any links in emails. In fact, by default iTunes checks for updates anyway and prompts you to install them.

Read More

An unbiased opinion is hard to find

I read a couple of interesting articles recently and they are well worth looking at because they highlight a very strange phenomenon. They are examples of the way some people see bias where none exists and the weird way some people interpret events. These things are often found in the constant battle between Microsoft and Apple, but it is not limited to these two companies. This website is concerned with technology, but the way people see bias in things extends to all areas, such as politics, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and so on. Whether you are a Windows, Apple, or Linux fan, you should read these articles with a fresh eye and be on your guard for biased reporting.

There is a great article at Tom's Hardware called Why Apple fans hate technology reporters and it describes how Walt Mossberg reviewed the iMac and praised it. However, he got lots of highly critical emails from Mac fans of all people, asking what he had against Macs. They saw his article as strongly anti-Apple when in fact he loved the machine. Mossberg has even coined a term for the effect. "I call it the Doctrine of Insufficient Adulation."

The article also describes research carried out presenting people with a news story about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how supporters of each side saw bias, but the exact opposite bias in the same story. People neutral to the conflict saw no bias in it. I won't go into further details because you can read the article yourself. It's interesting.

The other example comes from the MacDailyNews website The Microsoft Tax: McAfee correctly identifies Windows as malware; Macintosh unaffected. The site comments on news stories around the web and it saw an article on Yahoo! News titled McAfee antivirus program goes berserk, freezes PCs. This tells how an update to McAfee's anti virus software stopped Windows PCs from working because it  wrongly thought an operating system file was a virus. This was McAfee's fault and it had nothing to do with Windows or Microsoft, yet MacDailyNews said "MacDailyNews Take: If vehicle-makers sold products as unreliable as Microsoft, they'd be sued into oblivion. Yet, with Microsoft products, total failure in critical situations is not only immediately absolved, it's expected." Why blame Microsoft? It wasn't a Microsoft product that caused the problem.

McAfee doesn't have any Mac anti virus products, but Symantec does. Suppose an update for Norton AntiVirus stopped OS X from starting because it misidentified an operating system component. Would MacDailyNews criticise Apple or creating such a shoddy OS? I think not.

Of course, Apple fanatics love this Microsoft and Windows bashing. It's not limited to Microsoft though and it extends to all non-Apple products. As someone who tries to be unbiased, it is very irritating seeing so much biased opinion on the web. I have a Windows PC, Mac, Linux PC, iPod Touch, Blackberry and more, so hopefully I can see things from all angles. Be on your guard for biased opinions.

Read More