Apple Stores will reportedly give Apple Watch Edition customers extra hands-on time
Apple will reportedly allow customers interested in the most expensive variant of the Apple Watch 30 minutes of hands-on time to check it out.
The expanded appointment window for the Apple Watch Edition would be double the standard 15-minute window offered to customers trying out other models. International Business Times reports:
The standard appointment will be 15 minutes, but the company will offer an additional 15 minutes of try-on time to shoppers who express interest in the most expensive Apple Watch Edition versions, which start at $10,000 and finish at $17,000.
This follows a report from earlier today that interested customers won’t be able to start booking appointments to try the Apple Watch out until April 10 — 14 days ahead of the wearable’s April 24 launch date. Customers will be able to book appointments through both the Apple website and the Apple Store iOS app.
Source: International Business Times
<!–*/
<!–*/
<!–*/
.devicebox
background-color: #5CB8DB;
border: 1px solid #E2E9EB;
float: right;
display: block;
margin: 0 0px 10px 10px;
max-width: 350px;
overflow: hidden;
width: 50%;
.devicebox h3
background: #8D98BD;
color: #fff;
font-family: “camptonmedium”,sans-serif;
font-size: 20px;
margin-bottom: 0;
margin-top: 0;
padding: 0;
text-align: center;
.devicebox h3 a
display: block;
line-height: 30px;
padding: 0 10px;
.devicebox h3 a:hover
background: #7e88aa;
text-decoration: none;
.devicebox .video
margin: auto;
border: 0px;
.devicebox p,
.entry-content .devicebox p > img,
.devicebox img
margin: 0px;
max-width: 100%;
padding: 0px;
.devicebox,
.devicebox a,
.devicebox a:active,
.devicebox a:hover,
.devicebox a:link,
.devicebox a:visited,
.devicebox p,
.devicebox ul,
.devicebox ul li,
.devicebox li
color: #fff;
.devicebox a:hover
text-decoration: underline;
.devicebox p,
.devicebox ul,
.devicebox ul li,
.devicebox li
border-width: 0px;
font-family: “camptonlight”,sans-serif;
font-size: 16px;
padding: initial;
.devicebox ul
margin: 0;
padding: 0.5em 1em 1em 30px;
.devicebox ul li
display: list-item;
.devicebox ul,
.devicebox ul li,
.devicebox li
line-height: 24px;
list-style: disc outside none;
.devicebox ul li:before
display: none;
.devicebox p ~ p
padding: 0px 15px 15px;
line-height: 1.25;
.devicebox p:first-of-type + p
padding: 15px;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox
float: none;
margin: 0 auto 30px;
max-width: 700px;
min-height: 225px;
position: relative;
width: 100%;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video
bottom: 0px;
left: 50%;
position: absolute;
right: 0px;
top: 30px;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe
height: 100%;
padding: 0px;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox p,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox p
width: 43%;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p
bottom: 0;
left: 50%;
overflow: hidden;
position: absolute;
right: 0;
top: 30px;
width: 50%
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p img,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p img,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p img,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p img,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p img,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p img
float: right;
height: 100%;
width: auto;
@media all and (max-width: 500px)
.devicebox
float: none;
margin: 0 0 30px;
max-width: 100%;
width: 100%;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video
left: 0;
position: relative;
top: 0;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe
padding-bottom: 56.25%;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p
left: 0;
position: relative;
top: 0;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul
width: auto;
/*–>*/
/*–>*/
/*–>*/
Motorola lacks “any plans” for tablets, points to Lenovo for that
Lenovo sells multiple tablets. Motorola sells none. Don’t expect that to change for the foreseeable future. Rick Osterloh, Motorola’s President, hosted a brief Q&A session on Twitter earlier today in which he shot down the idea of the company releasing a tablet this year.
During the #AskRickO forum, Osterloh was asked if Motorola would be involved with tablets in 2015 to which he responded that “we don’t have any plans.” Instead, he redirected interested consumers to Lenovo’s tablet lineup. Motorola’s parent company currently sells sixteen Android and Windows tablets through its own online store. There, Osterloh believes a consumer can find a fitting tablet. Osterloh specifically recommended one of the YOGA tablets introduced in late 2014.
Source: Rick Osterloh (Twitter)
Via: Phone Arena
Come comment on this article: Motorola lacks “any plans” for tablets, points to Lenovo for that
Things the Google Play Store could improve: Part 2 – In-App Purchases
Editor’s note: this is the second article in this series discussing some potential Google Play Store flaws and what Google could do to improve user experience. Feel free to join the discussion and suggest new topics. You can find a link to part one at the bottom of the page.
In-app purchases have been a sore spot for both Google and consumers for a long time. Despite the overwhelming success of in-app purchases, many consumers are unhappy about the unscrupulous methods that some app and game developers use to procure money from their users. Of course, Google has had minor nightmares of their own, culminating in the FTC decision to make Google pay $19 million to parents when their kids made in-app purchases. In-app purchases are a big deal for developers, but more could be done to make it a more pleasant experience for consumers.
Please note, this is commentary on how the Google Play Store handles in-app purchases and not how app developers actually use them. That’s a wholly different conversation that we’ll all have together eventually.
What is the problem?
In-app purchases have made a negative name for themselves in some circles. The “cash cow” philosophy has been a subject of intense ire from many consumers and it’s even been parodied on shows like South Park. Of course, the stats don’t agree with the criticisms, as in-app purchases account for over 95% of sales in the Google Play Store and has allowed developers to make more money than ever before. So what’s the problem?
In-app purchases account for over 95% of the revenue generated in the Google Play Store
The problem can be summed up in one word: transparency. Let’s do a little thought exercise. Go to any app or game (with in-app purchases) in the Google Play Store that you have never downloaded, used, or even heard of before. Now, using the information only available on the app description page, try to discern the following:
- How many in-app purchases are there in total?
- What kind of in-app purchases are there? Are they consumables (gems), expansions, the pro unlocker, or a subscription?
- How much money is the developer going to ask you to spend?
- What exactly are you getting yourself into?
The fact is that you cannot answer these questions with the information available on the app description right now unless the developers go through the trouble of explaining it themselves. When you combine that closed-doors approach with a few bad experiences with “cash cow” apps and games, you end up with a consumer base that not only distrusts the whole system, but actively dislikes it. Let’s discuss these issues a little more in depth, shall we?
Problem #1: What are we actually paying for?
The core problem is that we simply can’t educate ourselves about an app or a game without downloading it. This wouldn’t be too much of a problem if there were only a few apps and games. However, there are currently well over one million apps and games in the Google Play Store. That means the process of finding and downloading each app and game that might look interesting just to see how much it will cost us is counterproductive and even a bit tedious. Without proper information, it severely bottlenecks the experience consumers could (and dare we say: should) be having.
Downloading each app and game just to see how much it’ll cost is counterproductive.
The questions begin to arise. Why doesn’t Google just give us a labeled list of all of the in-app purchases? It’s a good question and even I don’t understand why Google hasn’t done something like this yet. iTunes actually does this very well. If you look at the Clash of Clans iTunes page, you’ll see a list of the popular in-app purchases. You can clearly see that each in-app purchase revolves around buying a certain denomination of gems and, using a bit of logic, you can deduce that Clash of Clans operates using consumable in-app purchases before you ever download it.
It would almost be better if the price range didn’t exist at all.
Currently, there is a less-than-useful “price range” feature that labels all in-app purchases as “items”. The price range shows the cheapest and most expensive in-app purchase an application has or, if the app only has one, it will show a single price. It would almost be better if the price range didn’t exist at all because it doesn’t provide any useful information. Yes, apps with in-app purchases do, in fact, contain items. Yes, those items cost anywhere from $0.99 to $99.99. These are all things we knew the moment we saw the “offers in-app purchases” label.
The long and short of it is simply this: Google does a bad job at showing what these applications have to offer and what few attempts they’ve made to help feel halfhearted and rushed.
Problem #2: Subscriptions
Subscriptions are a huge problem in the Google Play Store for three reason:
- Subscription prices don’t appear in the “price range” portion of the Google Play Store. Don’t believe me? Look at Spotify’s app. It shows that there are in-app purchases, but no price is given. In fact, there’s isn’t so much as a dollar symbol anywhere on the page. There is something wrong with that.
- Apps and games that require a subscription do not have to use Google’s in-house system to process payments. Spotify, most VPN apps, and most antivirus apps have accounts that you can create and manage independently from Google. That makes them almost impossible to police on Google Play.
Subscriptions live in a reality all on their own.
- A few apps, such as Google Play Music, have a subscription service but there’s no mention of it anywhere. Again, if you don’t believe me, look for yourself. There is no price, no dollar sign, no in-app purchase label, or anything to indicate a cost. Spotify does a little better because it at least gets labeled for having in-app purchases. Humorously enough, Norton Security has the label and the subscription price listed in the price range section of their Google Play page.
It appears as though subscriptions live in a reality all on their own. On top of being wildly inconsistent, they appear to be able to skirt the rules other apps have to play by.
How does it get fixed?
Thankfully, most of the problems could be easily fixed with a bit of effort. Here are a few ideas we had:
- Show us all of the in-app purchases – It’s really as simple as that. Put all of them there and show us what they are. Google Play uses a modular UI and I don’t think anyone would be bummed out if they added a module that showed us the in-app purchases in their entirety, including cost and name. Bonus points if they tell us what kind of in-app purchase it is (consumables, pro versions, expansions, subscriptions, etc). If Google cannot grab this information using their APIs, give developers a box in the publisher dashboard where they can input the prices themselves.
- Create a standard for subscription services to follow – There currently is no standard for subscription services. Some show prices, others do not. Some are labeled as offering in-app purchases, others are not. Google needs to figure out a standard and begin to hold everyone (including itself) to it. The box in the publisher dashboard idea would work well here as well, especially for developers who don’t use Google services to charge for subscriptions.
-
Create a bottom line requirement for labeling apps – There seems to be no real standard for what counts as “having in-app purchases” and there really needs to be. Amazon Shopping and Google Play Music both allow you to spend money in the app, but don’t carry the IAP label. Spotify does have the label but doesn’t show a price. Grand Theft Auto titles are labeled as having in-app purchases but they actually don’t have any at all. It’s maddeningly inconsistent.
In-app purchase labels are maddeningly inconsistent.
- Allow us to refine our searches for certain types of in-app purchases – This one is a bit complicated. A majority of people who feel disdain for IAPs really only dislike certain types of IAPs such as consumables. If consumers can search for apps and games without those specific kinds of in-app purchases (or no in-app purchases at all), they will be able to find more apps that are suited to their liking and that will ultimately improve their experience.
- Give apps with in-app purchases their own top charts – This is the totally crazy, shot in the dark suggestion with a lot of potentially positive repercussions. With the apps and games with IAPs in their own category, it helps level the playing field for the standard free and free-paid paradigms without excluding IAPs entirely. This cleaner, more organized layout would result in people finding popular free apps and games and popular paid apps and games with no in-app purchases far more easily.
Wrap up
Listen folks, in-app purchases are a good thing. Revenue to developers has increased by leaps and bounds since its inception and they really are making more money now than ever before. That has translated to more content and higher quality content. There is no arguing that fact. Back in 2010, we had 700,000 apps and the best of the best were Flickster, Angry Birds, and Skype didn’t even allow for video calls on mobile yet.
Today we have more than double what we had in 2010 and they include massive, gorgeous games and innovative, beautifully designed apps. In 2010, Google Play (formerly the Android Market) made just over $100 million in total revenue. In 2013, after the first full year of in-app purchases, Google Play made an estimated $1.3 billion. It has only gone up since then. Even if you’re against the practice ethically, no one can argue with the results. IAPs are why most developers make money on Android.
IAPs are why most developers make money on Android.
However, I’m not so stuck in my ways that I can’t admit that there are a few bad apples (proportionately speaking) that make the whole bunch look bad. With the suggested improvements, the transparency will allow consumers to make better, more informed decisions about what apps they want to download. There is even a small, outside chance that “cash grab” developers may use the pressure of full transparency to tone down their aggressive strategies and try to compete by simplifying their pay structure and building better games. Nothing gets the ball rolling like transparency.
By giving consumers more control and information with the transparency, improved charts, and refined searches, a lot of the negativity could potentially subside as frustrated users will enjoy a new-found proliferation of apps and games that they actually want instead of being forced to browse through stuff they do not.
Who knows, one day maybe being labeled as having in-app purchases won’t be such a bad thing but it’s definitely not something that is just going to happen organically. As always, we’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter in the comments!
Check out the other parts of the series:
Things the Google Play Store could improve: Part 2 – In-App Purchases
Editor’s note: this is the second article in this series discussing some potential Google Play Store flaws and what Google could do to improve user experience. Feel free to join the discussion and suggest new topics. You can find a link to part one at the bottom of the page.
In-app purchases have been a sore spot for both Google and consumers for a long time. Despite the overwhelming success of in-app purchases, many consumers are unhappy about the unscrupulous methods that some app and game developers use to procure money from their users. Of course, Google has had minor nightmares of their own, culminating in the FTC decision to make Google pay $19 million to parents when their kids made in-app purchases. In-app purchases are a big deal for developers, but more could be done to make it a more pleasant experience for consumers.
Please note, this is commentary on how the Google Play Store handles in-app purchases and not how app developers actually use them. That’s a wholly different conversation that we’ll all have together eventually.
What is the problem?
In-app purchases have made a negative name for themselves in some circles. The “cash cow” philosophy has been a subject of intense ire from many consumers and it’s even been parodied on shows like South Park. Of course, the stats don’t agree with the criticisms, as in-app purchases account for over 95% of sales in the Google Play Store and has allowed developers to make more money than ever before. So what’s the problem?
In-app purchases account for over 95% of the revenue generated in the Google Play Store
The problem can be summed up in one word: transparency. Let’s do a little thought exercise. Go to any app or game (with in-app purchases) in the Google Play Store that you have never downloaded, used, or even heard of before. Now, using the information only available on the app description page, try to discern the following:
- How many in-app purchases are there in total?
- What kind of in-app purchases are there? Are they consumables (gems), expansions, the pro unlocker, or a subscription?
- How much money is the developer going to ask you to spend?
- What exactly are you getting yourself into?
The fact is that you cannot answer these questions with the information available on the app description right now unless the developers go through the trouble of explaining it themselves. When you combine that closed-doors approach with a few bad experiences with “cash cow” apps and games, you end up with a consumer base that not only distrusts the whole system, but actively dislikes it. Let’s discuss these issues a little more in depth, shall we?
Problem #1: What are we actually paying for?
The core problem is that we simply can’t educate ourselves about an app or a game without downloading it. This wouldn’t be too much of a problem if there were only a few apps and games. However, there are currently well over one million apps and games in the Google Play Store. That means the process of finding and downloading each app and game that might look interesting just to see how much it will cost us is counterproductive and even a bit tedious. Without proper information, it severely bottlenecks the experience consumers could (and dare we say: should) be having.
Downloading each app and game just to see how much it’ll cost is counterproductive.
The questions begin to arise. Why doesn’t Google just give us a labeled list of all of the in-app purchases? It’s a good question and even I don’t understand why Google hasn’t done something like this yet. iTunes actually does this very well. If you look at the Clash of Clans iTunes page, you’ll see a list of the popular in-app purchases. You can clearly see that each in-app purchase revolves around buying a certain denomination of gems and, using a bit of logic, you can deduce that Clash of Clans operates using consumable in-app purchases before you ever download it.
It would almost be better if the price range didn’t exist at all.
Currently, there is a less-than-useful “price range” feature that labels all in-app purchases as “items”. The price range shows the cheapest and most expensive in-app purchase an application has or, if the app only has one, it will show a single price. It would almost be better if the price range didn’t exist at all because it doesn’t provide any useful information. Yes, apps with in-app purchases do, in fact, contain items. Yes, those items cost anywhere from $0.99 to $99.99. These are all things we knew the moment we saw the “offers in-app purchases” label.
The long and short of it is simply this: Google does a bad job at showing what these applications have to offer and what few attempts they’ve made to help feel halfhearted and rushed.
Problem #2: Subscriptions
Subscriptions are a huge problem in the Google Play Store for three reason:
- Subscription prices don’t appear in the “price range” portion of the Google Play Store. Don’t believe me? Look at Spotify’s app. It shows that there are in-app purchases, but no price is given. In fact, there’s isn’t so much as a dollar symbol anywhere on the page. There is something wrong with that.
- Apps and games that require a subscription do not have to use Google’s in-house system to process payments. Spotify, most VPN apps, and most antivirus apps have accounts that you can create and manage independently from Google. That makes them almost impossible to police on Google Play.
Subscriptions live in a reality all on their own.
- A few apps, such as Google Play Music, have a subscription service but there’s no mention of it anywhere. Again, if you don’t believe me, look for yourself. There is no price, no dollar sign, no in-app purchase label, or anything to indicate a cost. Spotify does a little better because it at least gets labeled for having in-app purchases. Humorously enough, Norton Security has the label and the subscription price listed in the price range section of their Google Play page.
It appears as though subscriptions live in a reality all on their own. On top of being wildly inconsistent, they appear to be able to skirt the rules other apps have to play by.
How does it get fixed?
Thankfully, most of the problems could be easily fixed with a bit of effort. Here are a few ideas we had:
- Show us all of the in-app purchases – It’s really as simple as that. Put all of them there and show us what they are. Google Play uses a modular UI and I don’t think anyone would be bummed out if they added a module that showed us the in-app purchases in their entirety, including cost and name. Bonus points if they tell us what kind of in-app purchase it is (consumables, pro versions, expansions, subscriptions, etc). If Google cannot grab this information using their APIs, give developers a box in the publisher dashboard where they can input the prices themselves.
- Create a standard for subscription services to follow – There currently is no standard for subscription services. Some show prices, others do not. Some are labeled as offering in-app purchases, others are not. Google needs to figure out a standard and begin to hold everyone (including itself) to it. The box in the publisher dashboard idea would work well here as well, especially for developers who don’t use Google services to charge for subscriptions.
-
Create a bottom line requirement for labeling apps – There seems to be no real standard for what counts as “having in-app purchases” and there really needs to be. Amazon Shopping and Google Play Music both allow you to spend money in the app, but don’t carry the IAP label. Spotify does have the label but doesn’t show a price. Grand Theft Auto titles are labeled as having in-app purchases but they actually don’t have any at all. It’s maddeningly inconsistent.
In-app purchase labels are maddeningly inconsistent.
- Allow us to refine our searches for certain types of in-app purchases – This one is a bit complicated. A majority of people who feel disdain for IAPs really only dislike certain types of IAPs such as consumables. If consumers can search for apps and games without those specific kinds of in-app purchases (or no in-app purchases at all), they will be able to find more apps that are suited to their liking and that will ultimately improve their experience.
- Give apps with in-app purchases their own top charts – This is the totally crazy, shot in the dark suggestion with a lot of potentially positive repercussions. With the apps and games with IAPs in their own category, it helps level the playing field for the standard free and free-paid paradigms without excluding IAPs entirely. This cleaner, more organized layout would result in people finding popular free apps and games and popular paid apps and games with no in-app purchases far more easily.
Wrap up
Listen folks, in-app purchases are a good thing. Revenue to developers has increased by leaps and bounds since its inception and they really are making more money now than ever before. That has translated to more content and higher quality content. There is no arguing that fact. Back in 2010, we had 700,000 apps and the best of the best were Flickster, Angry Birds, and Skype didn’t even allow for video calls on mobile yet.
Today we have more than double what we had in 2010 and they include massive, gorgeous games and innovative, beautifully designed apps. In 2010, Google Play (formerly the Android Market) made just over $100 million in total revenue. In 2013, after the first full year of in-app purchases, Google Play made an estimated $1.3 billion. It has only gone up since then. Even if you’re against the practice ethically, no one can argue with the results. IAPs are why most developers make money on Android.
IAPs are why most developers make money on Android.
However, I’m not so stuck in my ways that I can’t admit that there are a few bad apples (proportionately speaking) that make the whole bunch look bad. With the suggested improvements, the transparency will allow consumers to make better, more informed decisions about what apps they want to download. There is even a small, outside chance that “cash grab” developers may use the pressure of full transparency to tone down their aggressive strategies and try to compete by simplifying their pay structure and building better games. Nothing gets the ball rolling like transparency.
By giving consumers more control and information with the transparency, improved charts, and refined searches, a lot of the negativity could potentially subside as frustrated users will enjoy a new-found proliferation of apps and games that they actually want instead of being forced to browse through stuff they do not.
Who knows, one day maybe being labeled as having in-app purchases won’t be such a bad thing but it’s definitely not something that is just going to happen organically. As always, we’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter in the comments!
Check out the other parts of the series:
Facebook Turns Messenger Into a Platform, Allows Third-Party iOS App Integration
At today’s F8 Facebook Developer Conference, Facebook debuted its new Messenger Platform, a major update to the Messenger service that allows users to send content like GIFs, photos, videos, and more from third-party apps within the Facebook Messenger app for iOS.
Beginning today, iOS app developers can build Facebook Messenger support into their apps, making them directly accessible within the Facebook Messenger app. Facebook has already worked with more than 40 developers, so apps with Messenger support are already available in the iOS App Store.
Apps can be accessed in the Facebook Messenger app for iOS when the “More” icon is tapped within a conversation. This opens up a list of available apps that can be installed, and when tapping install, you’ll be taken to the app’s install page in the iOS App Store.
The way third-party apps work with Messenger on iOS is a bit convoluted. Apps are installed independently, but those that support the Messenger Platform will send their content via Messenger. For example, if you install GIF app Giphy on your iPhone (which is one of the new apps that supports the Messenger Platform), tapping on it from within the Messenger app will open the separate iOS app to let you choose and send a GIF.
In the Giphy app, you will see a list of all your Messenger friends, and once you tap to send a GIF to one of them, you will be returned to the Messenger app and your original Messenger conversation. From there, you can continue on the conversation, send additional GIFs, or send other content from other third-party apps. Content can be viewed in the Facebook desktop app, but sending it can only be done from an iOS device.
There are a wealth of third-party apps available in Facebook Messenger for iOS right now. Apps include GIF apps like Giphy, emoji apps, sticker apps, video apps, collage apps, and more. All of the apps are being released today in the iOS App Store and have been specially developed for use with the Facebook Messenger app.
While most of the apps have been developed by third parties, Facebook has released its own apps for Messenger, including Stickered, Selfied, and Shout. Third-party apps include ClipDis, Giphy, Bitmoji, ESPN, Camoji, Talking Tom, and Emu.
Facebook has faced some criticism for the way it’s handled its iOS apps, most notably removing messages access from the main Facebook app and forcing users to download Facebook Messenger, but today’s update with expanded content for the iOS app may change public opinion and could draw in users who have been reluctant to download the Messenger app for iOS.
Facebook Messenger for iOS can be downloaded from the App Store for free. [Direct Link]
Motorola ruled to have infringed on Intellectual Ventures patent
A US Jury in Delaware has found Motorola guilty of infringing on one of Intellectual Venture’s patents, while clearing the company of a second potential infringement. The infringed patent in question deals with multimedia text messaging, while the non-infringing patent dealt with wireless bandwidth. Damages will be figured up later.
Intellectual Ventures probably isn’t a company that you’re familiar with as a consumer, as they deal mostly with licensing out patents to other companies. The company says they’re not like other patent trolls as they don’t file frivolous lawsuits, but they do have a pretty good track record with lawsuits that they do file. Either way, it’s still hard not to see these kinds of patent disputes hurting innovation and consumer devices.
source: Reuters
Come comment on this article: Motorola ruled to have infringed on Intellectual Ventures patent
Android 5.1.0_r3 factory images (LMY47I) arrive for Nexus 5 and Nexus 6
Factory images have just gone up for the Nexus 5 and Nexus 6, bearing the build name LMY47I. So what’s new here exactly? What we’re looking at is Android 5.1.0_r3, which appears to contain a few minor bug fixes.
While one would hope that the bug fixes ould be focused on some of the bigger lingering Lollipop issues (such as the notorious memory leak), from the sounds of it the fixes here are almost all related to addressing bugs that deal with SIM card handling. There might be a few other small tweaks and fixes here, but nothing too exciting.
To grab the latest images, you’ll want to click on your device from the list below:
We’ll be sure to update you if and when build LMY47I makes its way to any other members of the Nexus family.
Google Keep version 3.1 update brings recurring reminders and label support
If you’ve been wanting a little more functionality out of Google Keep, this may be your lucky day. In an update to version 3.1, Google Keep is getting support for recurring reminders and labels to keep you more organized.
For starters, label support is a small way to keep your notes more organized. To add labels to a specific note, simply press the overflow menu and click Add label. A few default labels are included, but you can add your own if you’d like. After you’ve added labels to your notes, you can search for a specific tag from the main overview screen.
Recurring reminders have also been added, which will likely be a welcome addition for most Google Keep users. You can now set daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, or custom reminders and have each one occur over a period of time. Reminders in Keep have been around for awhile now, but the ability to make them repeat is a new feature.
None of these new enhancements are particularly innovative, but we’re sure everyone is happy that one of the best note taking apps is getting a little more functional. Version 3.1 is now rolling out in the Google Play Store, so follow the link below to check for the update.
Every UK House of Commons member is getting an iPad
When the UK’s Members of Parliament get down to work following the election in May, they’ll have more than just a new government on their hands — they’ll have a tablet, too. The Parliamentary tech team is handing out cellular-equipped iPad Air 2 units to all 650 House of Commons MPs so that they have a secure way to do business wherever they are. While 209 of them already had iPads, this move makes them standard issue.
The effort could do a lot to advance technology in the House, but it’s also receiving a lot of flak. Cost is probably the big issue: while the committee decided that iPads were “competitively priced” given the goals (cellular data, security and a long lifespan), the plan will cost £1 million (roughly $1.5 million) over five years. It should theoretically save money versus printing hundreds of copies of paper documents, but the savings could be larger with lower-cost hardware. Also, Shadow Cabinet Office minister Chi Onwurah isn’t happy with the focus on iOS — Apple’s platform is already part of the House’s practices, but Onwurah would prefer a device-independent approach. Like it or not, though, Britain (and really, the world) is about to find out how well the iPad works as a common legislative tool.
Via: TechCrunch, The Telegraph
Source: Computerworld UK
Former Beats Execs Jimmy Iovine and Trent Reznor Leading Development of Apple’s New Music Service
Rumors about a revamped Apple-branded Beats streaming music service have been circulating since September of last year, but as the launch of the service draws nearer, information on pricing and content has been leaking out.
In a detailed report on the upcoming service published today, The New York Times confirms some previously known information and adds new details on the roles Trent Reznor and Jimmy Iovine are playing in the development of the music service. The report also divulges some information on Apple’s interest in exclusive album releases and the company’s work on an iTunes Radio revamp.
Apple’s upcoming streaming music service is said to take on many of the characteristics of the existing Beats Music service, with a focus on curated playlists and a “vivid visual appeal” that also fits into Apple’s minimal design aesthetic. It’s unlikely to retain the “Beats Music” moniker, and it is being tested as a part of iOS 9.
As previously rumored, while Apple hoped to price its new service at $7.99, undercutting the prices of competing services like Spotify and Rdio, it saw significant resistance from record companies. As a result, the service will likely be priced similarly to those other services, at $9.99 per month, but it will have no free tier.
Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor, who was the Chief Creative Officer at Beats before it was acquired by Apple, is “playing a major role” in the redesign of the music streaming app. Jimmy Iovine, Beats co-founder, is also said to be playing an important role furthering Apple’s music ambitions.
Mr. Iovine has set the tone of the transformation of Apple’s music plans, according to music executives. Mr. Iovine, who reports to Eddy Cue, Apple’s head of software and Internet services, has been leading aggressive talks to secure prominent album releases that will be exclusive to Apple, akin to what Beyoncé did when she released her self-titled album on iTunes in December 2013. One music executive involved in the negotiations described this part of the new iTunes as “Spotify with Jimmy juice.”
Along with a revamped music service, Apple is said to be planning to debut an enhanced version of iTunes Radio, which will be more tailored to listeners in regional markets and more like a traditional radio station. Recent hire Zane Lowe, a former BBC radio DJ has joined the iTunes Radio team as part of this effort.
Rumors have suggested that Apple’s revamped music service will debut at this year’s Worldwide Developers Conference, which is also when we’ll see the first unveiling of iOS 9. If the music service is built into iOS 9, it’ll see an official release in the fall when the operating system debuts.
AIVAnet 