If managing your to-do lists is taking up more time and effort than you spend actually getting things done, a new iPhone app coming from developers Phill Ryu and Milen Dzhumerov, designer David Lanham, and publisher Realmac Software might be the perfect solution. Tossing most iPhone UI conventions out the window along with any religious adherence to GTD principles, the upcoming Clear app is designed to eliminate the friction and complexity of adhering to systems like GTD and be as easy to use as a paper list. We were able to meet up with the team at the 2012 Macworld|iWorld to check out the offerings.

Clear has no standard navigation bar at the top or tab bar at the bottom—common iPhone UI elements. Instead, the app is stripped down to the bare minimum, with a rectangular strip for each list item. Pull the list down from the top to add another item. Swipe right to mark the item completed. Swipe left to delete the item from your list. Pinch to access a list of lists—you could keep a shopping list, a list of errands, and a list of projects, for example.






Read the comments on this post

This post originally appeared on Joe Wikert's Publishing 2020 Blog ("iBooks Author: Appreciating Apple's Intent"). It's republished with permission.

Apple's recent announcement and release of its iBooks Author tool was met with plenty of controversy. This HuffPost article pretty well sums things up.

My question is simply this: Why all the fuss? Apple's intent has never been to improve the book publishing industry. Just like Amazon and any other ebook vendor, Apple's goal is to capture share of this rapidly growing segment. In Apple's case, it simply decided to offer an authoring tool that's capable of creating some pretty darned cool products. If Amazon were to do the same thing and create a terrific authoring tool for mobi or KF8 format, would the industry be as upset? I don't think so.

How is this any different from the App Store model itself? Developers are creating apps for the App Store, and they know they'll only run on an iOS device. They also realize they'll have to go through Apple's approval process before getting into the App Store.

Prior to the release of iBooks Author, the content creation and distribution model looked like this:

Author writes material in favorite word processor.
Author/publisher edit and convert that content into mobi format for distribution on Amazon, EPUB format for distribution through iBookstore and others, etc.

The exact same model still exists today, even with the introduction of iBooks Author. That's right. Apple's EULA doesn't really lock you into its distribution channel for your content. That restriction only applies to a "book or other work you generate using [the iBooks Author] software." All Apple's really trying to do is prevent you from tweaking the output of its tool to create content for other distribution channels. OK, that's kind of annoying, but far from the lock-in nightmare so many people are describing it as. Based on my interpretation, you're able to use the same content as input to the iBooks Author tool as you'd use for a mobi-formatted product you want to sell on Amazon.

(I should also point out that I'm far from an Apple fanboy. Anyone who knows me realizes I dumped my iPhone last year for an Android-based Samsung Galaxy S II (and yes, I love it). I also tried to dump my iPad for a Kindle Fire but found the Fire user experience to be very disappointing. I'll probably make the jump to another Android tablet later this year, once key apps like Zite are available. In the meantime though, I want to make it clear I'm not here to shill for Apple. If anything, I'm currently in a stage where I'd prefer to buy devices that aren't made by the content providers. Samsung is high on my list, for example.)

Apple doesn't have an objective to move the publishing industry forward. It sees an opportunity to reinvent this industry, and it feels it can do so within its own, closed ecosystem. It's as simple as that, and it's consistent with everything it has done in the App Store up to now.

Let's also not forget that the iBooks Author tool is free. It's not like we paid Apple $50, $100 or more for some authoring tool that we thought could work for all content formats and distribution channels. If the tool's feature set is compelling enough, I'd like to think the other ebook vendors (e.g., Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Kobo, etc.) will have to come up with something at least as powerful for their own platforms. If not, they get left in the dust and Apple gains share. Seems pretty fair to me.

In the meantime, I plan to do some hands-on testing with iBooks Author. At first, I was discouraged because you can't download iBooks Author unless you're running Lion. I'm still on Snow Leopard, but an O'Reilly colleague sent me this link that shows you how to tweak a couple of settings so you can download and run iBooks Author on a Snow Leopard system. I just tried it, and it works fine. (You just have to carefully read and interpret the steps since it's a translation from French to English.)

TOC NY 2012 — O'Reilly's TOC Conference, being held Feb. 13-15, 2012, in New York City, is where the publishing and tech industries converge. Practitioners and executives from both camps will share what they've learned and join together to navigate publishing's ongoing transformation.

Register to attend TOC 2012

Related:

A few thoughts on iBooks Author and Apple's textbook move
The textbook industry might not be as "reinvented" as Apple hoped

Welcome to 2012! If you're a consumer, you're likely getting ready for another year full of new products, drama, and intrigue from the tech world. If you're a journalist, you're cowering in fear of the upcoming CES trade show. And if you're a Mac or iOS developer—well, as always, you're wishing for bigger and better things out of Apple and its community.

While the iOS and Mac App Stores exploded in popularity in 2011, there's still plenty of room for improvement on the developer side. When we spoke with a number of iOS and Mac developers about their wish list for 2012, they didn't hesitate to let us know about changes they would like to see.






Read the comments on this post

Penultimate, by Cocoa Box Design, aims to bring the analog act of note taking to the purely digital iPad. In recent days, the application has enjoyed the number one sales slot on the App Store, as well as a short time in the top 10 grossing apps. However, as we all know by now, not all that glitters is gold. Does Penultimate stack up to its lofty App Store success?

As long as you don’t look too closely, Penultimate is beautiful. The application takes its styling inspiration from a leather-bound notebook filled with your choice of white lined paper, graph paper, or blank white paper. The power of the app lies in allowing users to create as many separate notebooks as they desire, making the task of organizing notes somewhat trivial.





Read the comments on this post

Dan Grigsby, founder of Mobile Orchard, is abandoning iPhone development. The reason? Apple's "ask permission" environment doesn't work for him anymore. He explained his decision in a recent blog post:

Ask permission environments crush creativity and innovation. In healthy environments, when would-be innovators/creators identify opportunities, the only thing that stands between the idea and its realization is work. In the iPhone OS environment when you see an opportunity, you put in work first, ask Apple's permission and then, only after gaining their approval, your idea can be realized. I've always worked at the edge; it's where the interesting opportunities live. None of the startup[s] I've created would have been possible in an ask permission environment.

What's interesting here -- from an industry perspective -- is that if you get past the Apple vs. Adobe vs. OS 4.0 vs. what-have-you stuff, there's two legitimate viewpoints floating around. You've got developers like Grigsby who find Apple's model too limiting. So they get out. And then you've got devs who think the App Store opportunity outweighs the obstacles (for now). Dan Pilone, co-author of "Head First iPhone Development" and founder of Element 84, is in that second group.

After corresponding with Grigsby and Pilone, I was struck by how much they have in common. There aren't any vast philosophical differences at play here. Both dislike aspects of Apple's model and both also see lots of opportunity in the App Store. Yet one is in and one is out.

The concerns

To help me understand his fundamental problems with Apple's model, Grigsby began by outlining the series of events that led to his departure from iPhone development.

Grigsby: Very often, you would have a group of developers in some kind of social setting and one would say, "I want to give you a free copy of my app." And in one case, a guy handed me a business card that had a URL for the iTunes store. And then he gave me a dollar and said, "Just go buy my app." That's crazy. I don't want your dollar. I want you to be able to whip out your iPhone and give me a promo code.

So, I wrote a single-site browser that would interact with iTunes Connect and let iPhone developers generate a promo code. Now I knew, because I've read the terms and conditions, that would never be allowed into the App Store. There's language in there that says you can't scrape the store. I was going to distribute the source instead. But I talked to some attorneys and they said Apple could decide that bothers them and kick me out of the program.

From what I perceived as maybe a $10,000 or $20,000 opportunity, I had to make a decision as to whether I should stay in this business. That's such an uncomfortable place to be. And so that most recent experience, the "you live or you die at Apple's discretion," made me start to look at all of the other examples of places where they're treating the App Store as an extension of their brand as opposed to just a marketplace. I lost all of my enthusiasm. I made a decision that I was going to change to something else.

Pilone has his concerns as well. He's a pragmatist, not an evangelist. He noted, for example, that recent app snubs should raise red flags for all developers.

Pilone: I think there's a potentially significant risk lurking out there. That's the approval process. Not from an "Are you using undocumented APIs?" perspective. That's an easy one to avoid. But from a "No thanks, you're competing with something we've already done," or "We don't want that kind of application on our phone," perspective.

Google Voice is the poster child for this issue, and there was a lot of rumor and speculation over whether the Opera browser was going to make it into the store (it ultimately did). This now begs the question, if Google Voice was delayed (Apple never officially rejected it as far as I know) because the voice, voicemail and SMS features duplicated functionality already on the phone, on what grounds could the Opera browser possibly be accepted? The point being, there's a real business risk of investing in a product only to have it completely rejected without any real avenues to rectify the situation. I don't want to make a bigger deal out of it than it is. Obviously 180,000+ other applications have managed to get into the store. But it's a risk.

A secondary marketplace

One proposed solution to developers' concerns is for Apple to allow a secondary market to take root. This would be an open space where developers who don't want to go through Apple's process can sell their apps legitimately. I posed this alternative to both Grigsby and Pilone.

Grigsby said a secondary marketplace would be a fine addition, but he's interested in a different change: he believes markets will naturally form if users can install software on Apple devices in much the same way developers can.

Grigsby: When you give someone the fundamental ability to install software on their phone, entrepreneurs will build marketplaces and create discoverability. Obviously, that's a threat to Apple. And so I can see Apple's point in all of this. This is why when you talk to me, I'm sad. I'm not mad. But it runs against my principles.

Pilone responded with a host of big questions:

Pilone: How many "secondary" marketplaces are we talking about? One? Two? Who decides? As a consumer, do I need to worry about all of them? What's my purchasing, downloading and installation experience like? Do I get enough value in the apps in that "store" to justify the time and complexity of having to figure it out? Sure, there will be power users who would use it, and as a developer I don't want to ignore that crowd, but really, in the grand scheme of things, what apps do you want or need that aren't in the App Store now? I go back to the philosophy that if a secondary market is valuable to you (as a developer or a consumer), go with a device that has it.

In or out?

I asked Grisby what Apple would have to do to get him back. He laughed, claiming he has no say in the matter. But in the off chance Apple asked, there's only one thing he wants:

Grigsby: I'm not standing outside saying, "Apple, you will do this or else." I recognize that my voice doesn't command that kind of authority with them. But I'd be happy if they gave people the ability to distribute apps outside of the store. I love marketing. I'm a marketing hacks kind of guy. So I can get people to find the applications. Just give me the ability to freely create works and find a market for them and I'll be happy.

It's a simple enough request. Just one tweak to the model, right? But in the course of my exchange with Pilone, he hit on the fundamental problem developers face: Apple is, above all else, focused on the consumer. Anything that runs counter to that isn't debatable.

Pilone: I take a very pragmatic approach to this. I think it's important for people (read: developers) to realize that Apple is a consumer products company. At the end of the day, they're about consumers, not developers. Apple philosophically believes that by delivering a closed system they can deliver a better consumer product. The success of the iPod and iPhone strongly supports that argument.

Apple's iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad are "closed" devices that are 100-percent targeted at the end users. Developers are welcome, but you're going to support Apple's vision of the end-user experience whether you want to or not. Ultimately, it's a gamble for Apple. They're taking a risk that if they alienate too many developers, some other platform may draw them in. But Apple's wagering that if they make the best consumer product out there, it will have the largest user base. Developers will code for it because that's where they can be paid for their work and reach the broadest audience.