Spoiler: they really like it. Why can’t Spotify get their UI design act together like the Rdio guys? I’m a total Spotify devotee and love their native app’s speed, high sound quality and great selection. But this “let’s copy iTunes and make it dark” design is getting really old.
I found this extended look by Ars author Ryan Paul a bit overly friendly toward the internet powerhouse. It’s nevertheless pretty essential reading for any web developer. A few key trends of the piece are worth remembering; successful developers iterate often and test religiously. One other point I rarely see emphasized, but apparently critical at Facebook:
Instead of offices, Facebook developers work mostly in open spaces laid out like bullpens. Workstations are lined up along shared tables, with no barriers between individual workers. Each building has meeting rooms where employees can have discussions without disturbing other workers.
That last sentence is key. I’ve personally found development breakthroughs often come from healthy verbal debate in front of a white board, but doing so in the middle of an open plan can (understandably) disturb colleagues. Private spaces are critical.
No Rands, thank you.
I appreciate what Alexis Mardigral has to say about startups and lack of originality, especially those without a revenue stream:
But more than the bandwidth or the stagnant hardware, I think the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of the business model. The dominant idea has been to gather users and get them to pour their friends, photos, writing, information, clicks, and locations into your app. Then you sell them stuff (Amazon.com, One King’s Lane) or you take that data and sell it in one way or another to someone who will sell them stuff (everyone). I return to Jeff Hammerbacher’s awesome line about developers these days: “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads.”
Worse yet, all this stuff is dependent on machine learning algorithms that are crude and incredibly difficult to improve. You pour more vast amounts of data in to eke out a bit more efficiency. That’s great and all, but let’s not look at that kind of behavior and call it “disruptive.” That is the opposite of disruptive.
Yet many other arguments offered fall flat. Elsewhere Alexis argues the iPad is basically a large iPhone (judging from the increasingly desktop-like, full featured software jumping on the platform, he’s missing the point) and that “we’re working with the exact same toolset that we had on a 2007 iPhone”. That’s totally false; he’s nuts if he thinks the mobile sector isn’t booming in innovation.
This extended piece by Atlantic writer Stephen Marche is really interesting. However I find it more revelatory as a conversation piece than a convincing argument against Facebook.
The article is at its best arguing for Facebook as a “grind” over a fun, interconnected experience:
What’s truly staggering about Facebook usage is not its volume—750 million photographs uploaded over a single weekend—but the constancy of the performance it demands. More than half its users—and one of every 13 people on Earth is a Facebook user—log on every day. Among 18-to-34-year-olds, nearly half check Facebook minutes after waking up, and 28 percent do so before getting out of bed. The relentlessness is what is so new, so potentially transformative. Facebook never takes a break. We never take a break.
What qualifies as a ‘great’ iOS app over the long run? For me it’s simple: It saves me time. It doesn’t have to have a great icon, a great design, sexy graphics or get lots of praise from tech bloggers. If any of those traits add to saving time (and they often do) great, but time and efficiency outweigh everything else.
I use Drafts because its simplicity and raw speed saves me a few seconds every time I have to capture an idea or reminder. IA Writer’s clean typography and lack of customization focuses my mind for longer form writing. Marsedit’s quick WordPress and browser integration saves me a few minutes for every linked list post I make. Omnifocus syncs effortlessly and reliably between my Macs and mobile devices; I spend little time worried about lost contacts or todos. With Reeder I can scroll through and consume a day’s worth of tech, design and film news on my subway commute home.
Paring down your app set to mostly those that increase efficiency or save time isn’t a groundbreaking idea, but it is easier said than done. Like many in the tech industry, I get a regular share of recommendations via Twitter and RSS. I use to always download what had buzz with the tech bloggers, what was ‘innovative’ and what just looked cool. Yet after playing with a hot new app for a few days, 95 percent of the time I’d delete it or move it to some back folder, never to be touched again.
Don’t let this be you. Make hard decisions on the apps and tools you use. Granted there’s always edge cases: Gaming apps by their very nature should be arguably something that takes more, not less of your time if it’s a fun experience. There’s also something powerful with occasional experimentation: I downloaded Clear knowing full well it wasn’t a tool for me. Yet just playing with the app for a buck and hour of my time gave me design inspirations for my day job. Not everyone has the same priorities either. With my mobile workflow, saving time is paramount; I want to get in, get my work done and get out as efficiently as possible. You might instead favor aesthetic beauty, or great icons, or other traits.
Whatever that app goal is, stay focused. Is that new app that’s new and noteworthy on the App Store really going to integrate well with your workflow? Is it really better than what you already have? Ask those questions before you download.
Ever since news broke of the DOJ accusing Apple of collusion, I’ve gone back and forth on where I stand on the issue. On one hand, Apple has a point about Amazon’s stranglehold on the e-book market, which isn’t good for anybody. Yet the implication that flipping to an agency model that jacks up prices for consumers isn’t kosher either.
After reading entrepreneur David Parkman’s opinion here on the matter, I’ve fallen more on the pro-Amazon side. A great point here:
The negative coverage of Amazon is centered on them selling eBooks below cost in order to reach the $10 price point. But that is a function of publishers setting the cost higher than $10. If the profit-maximizing price for an eBook is $10, then publishers must adapt to set a wholesale price lower than that, even if it means your legacy cost structure doesn’t allow it. And that’s the rub.
This reminds me about the record companies initial complaints about iTunes store pricing. Apple, in their eyes, was going too low. Yet we all remember life prior to the iPod, where retail prices of $17 or more per CD at a Tower Records was commonplace. It doesn’t fully excuse then some monopolistic like behavior from Apple, but was that pricing structure fair for the consumer?
The Iterate podcast gathered a lot of talented designers together – David Bernard of App Cubby, Marc Edwards of Bjango, to name a few – and talked for an hour on first impressions of Photoshop CS6. It’s really interesting if Photoshop is at all a core part of your workflow. Don’t miss the 30 minute mark where the hosts discuss the backwardness of Photoshop’s default settings (e.g. why default to sRGB color space instead of Adobe RGB?)
I already listen regularly to the Build and Analyze podcast, but this week’s episode really stood out as a keeper. I especially enjoyed a brief aside (starting around the 20 minute mark) about Facebook’s long term intentions regarding the web and Instagram.
I’m not abandoning Instapaper anytime soon, but Pocket looks semi compelling. I could see it fitting into my workflow as slick tool for capturing non-textual media like video and imagery.