The iPod lives on…

For years now, iPod sales have been declining. The reasons are obvious: cannibalisation by the iPhone; and the rise of music streaming over the purchase/download model. While we see fewer and fewer iPods these days, they do appear regularly in a number of different contexts. The first examples that come to mind are those who use iPods with older docking stations with 30-pin connectors, and people who enjoy exercising with iPod nanos and shuffles.

Perhaps the most intriguing situation is one that I have seen numerous times on public transport: people using iPod Classics and nanos for music consumption, all the while using their Android phones for apps and other general tasks. I consider this to be a sign of Apple’s influence in the broader music industry. Even with the plethora of music consumption choices on Google’s Play Store, be it Spotify, Pandora, Guvera or some other service, there is a significant number of people who stick to the tried-and-true model of downloading songs from iTunes and syncing with an iPod.

We can speculate about the reasons for this. Perhaps it’s just easier for these users to stick with what works. Maybe they like to keep their old iPods (or even buy new ones) for exercise. They may even prefer to have an alternative music source in case their smartphone battery dies.

I think there’s a deeper meaning.

I believe that this (specific) continued use of iPods is an indication of Apple’s brand power, as well as the significance of music ownership. During the Jobs era, Apple clearly established itself as the home of digital music: a legal, accessible alternative to worrisome services at the time, like Napster. This dominance has since been challenged, particularly by Spotify, however Apple is quickly growing its newest service, Apple Music, with millions of paid subscribers. For these persistent iPod users, Apple continues to be the best place to find music. iTunes remains to be a service that they can trust, no matter how bloated it might have become. Considering that some (not all) Android users dislike iPhones, it’s fascinating to see how a subset of users cling to these Apple devices even when their smartphones can do so much more, all in the one package.

On the topic of music purchasing versus streaming, there is something to be said about owning your music. While I love using Apple Music now, prior to its introduction I was vehemently against streaming. The idea of paying a subscription fee rather than maintaining purchasing habit seemed ridiculous to me. I’ve converted now (and I’m happy that I did), as access to such a broad library of 30 million songs, along with curated radio stations and playlists, is just too appealing. I can understand, however, why others may not be so willing. Owning stuff feels more familiar and secure.

I have always been and will continue to be a fan of the iPod. After the iMac, which reinvigorated a dying company in 1998, the iPod was the beginning of Apple’s truly magnificent success in the early 2000s, leading up to today with the iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch. No one else had ever achieved the level of integration in consumer electronics and services that Apple did at the time, and that’s still the case. Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook all offer comprehensive services and ecosystems, but no one offers the whole widget like Apple does.

The iPod’s influence was so huge that it is still felt today, and it seems that even some devoted Android smartphone users haven’t forgotten this.

Ahh clickbait… (sigh)

Time and time again, I’m disappointed by the state of tech journalism online. Not a day goes by when someone feels the need to write a false or sensational article about a technological consumer product. All tech companies, big and small, are targets for such articles; Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon all cop a huge amount of criticism. Apple, though, seems to have a special place reserved as the target for baseless, ‘journalistic’ drivel.

Take, for example, the recent article Apple Watch will ruin your life and I’m ashamed to have one on my wrist… shared by Independent from The Washington Post, the writer attempts to convince his readers that the Apple Watch is a complete waste of money.

I understand that wearables aren’t for everyone, and even within this category of products, people have their perfectly justified preferences for Apple, Google Android, Pebble, Fitbit and others. Even as an Apple fan, I’m not so blindly entranced by the brand that I can’t see the advantages of other products and the shortcomings of Apple’s own.

Unfortunately, this piece is purely one of sensational opinion, designed to attack Apple, seemingly only because of some kind of tall poppy syndrome (I assume). The writer criticises the ‘slowness’ of Apple Watch, without so much of a reference to the fact that it is a first-generation product, or the fact that Apple has worked to achieve 7x faster app launch with the upcoming watchOS 3. Much of the ‘slowness’ up until now has been present mostly in third-party apps, and has been a result of Apple’s conservative use of memory in order to maximise battery life. It turns out that they over-shot and have plenty of memory to spare.

There’s also a lazy claim that Apple has “failed to capture the attention of the wider public”. This is baseless, because Apple hasn’t even released any official sales data to which the writer could refer. Furthermore, numerous analysts and statistical organisations have cited a huge jump in global smartwatch sales, spurred on by Apple Watch. Before Apple Watch, the wearable category was without a story or design standard. As some form of evidence, according to Strategy Analytics, smartwatch sales sky-rocketed 316 per cent between Q4 of 2014 and Q4 of 2015. Juniper also stated that Apple Watch accounted for over 50 per cent of smartwatch sales in all of 2015. Take this data as you will, but it’s certainly more evidence than what the clickbait article offers.

Disappointingly, the writer also inserts (without much of a subtle link or segue), a video with the caption: ‘Can Samsung beat the Apple Watch?’. What does this have to do with the quality of the watch? This article isn’t so much a fair critique of the product and where it can go in the future. It’s pure clickbait that attempts to perpetuate a meaningless dichotomy of Apple and Samsung in the tech space. Samsung is not Apple’s only competitor, and there are many companies doing interesting things out there than just these two companies.

I respect the opinion of this writer. If he doesn’t enjoy his Apple Watch, that’s totally fine. I just wish that tech journalists would lift their game in reporting on the strengths and weaknesses of products, regardless of who designs them, so that consumers can make informed decisions that will benefit their digital lives.

App Review: Hyper by Antihero, Inc.

I’ve downloaded many, many apps since my first iPhone in 2008. At my most extreme, I had 245 apps installed and neatly organised in folders, fully alphabetised and categorised. In more recent times, I decided that things had become ridiculous; I had to let go of some apps to restore some sanity to my home screen. Nowadays, I have only around 75 apps on my iPhone, and I’m much more critical of every free and priced app download. For an app to make its way onto my home screen, it had better be good.

Well, an app came along that is most definitely worth it.

Hyper by Antihero, Inc. is a fantastic, new app, which I can only describe as the perfect synthesis of on-demand web video and curated, almost broadcast-style content. Every day, the app team trawls the Web, searching for what it believes are the ten best videos of the day. Once selected, they land on Hyper’s menu, each with a beautiful, bold title, the duration and easy sharing options linked to the share-sheets available in iOS.

The app made its first appearance on the new Apple TV, with an easy-to-use, swipeable interface that is optimised for the new Siri Remote.

Hyper icon on Apple TV Home screen

The iPad version followed soon afterwards, with the iPhone left until last. This is rather interesting, as the iPhone is often first on developers’ minds for apps, whether they are games, utilities or steaming libraries. The iPhone is where the cash is. In this case, it’s obvious that the team had nailed the interface for TV first, and decided to take the time to translate the experience in a considerate way for smaller displays.

Hyper running on Apple TV

Not only do they curate content for each day, they also group the best of the week into an easy weekend recap, so that you can catch up on what you might have missed.

Hyper on iPhone

It’s the synthesis, however, that makes this app so much fun to use. You choose the content that you want to watch (curated according to your interests upon first use), without having to search for it yourself. Yes, it’s a first-world problem, but who has the time to subscribe to 500 YouTube channels and check push notifications all day?

While I often start each morning scrolling through the feed in my Apple News app, I end each day with a visit to Hyper. Furthermore, if you’re the type to watch videos on your commute each morning, the videos actually download automatically over Wi-Fi early in the day, so you can watch it on-the-go without worrying about nasty data charges.

Sharing, info and saving options on the playback/pause screen

I could go on about this app all day; I’ve learnt and laughed a lot using it. There have been awesome videos from social organisations, YouTubers and various other documentary, sport  and comedy sites. The folk at Hyper have great taste.

Do yourself a favour and try the app. It’s well worth your time, and if anything, will bring a bit of focus to your digital life.

Star rating

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️