iLounge

Apple’s Time Capsule Gets a Second Chance, But Really Needs An iTunes + iPhoto Server

By Jeremy Horwitz | 07.02.09 | 3 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

We were genuinely excited when Apple announced its $299 and $499 Time Capsule back in early 2008—so much so that we were amongst the first people to run out and buy one when they hit stores in late February. Soon thereafter, we highlighted it on Backstage since it was technically outside of iLounge’s typical scope of iPod, iPhone, and iTunes coverage, but it was obvious that there could be some overlap. Apple had released a wireless network hard drive capable of serving as at least a backup and at most a shared storage device for our growing libraries of media files, something that we’d been hoping Apple would do for years, and though the price was higher than we’d hoped, we felt that it was certainly worth trying.

Yet one or two days later, we were probably amongst the first people to return that Time Capsule to the store, our hopes for its utility as an iTunes streaming system deflated by its slow speed. Similar comments quickly began to appear elsewhere on the Internet, and Apple subsequently released updated software that somewhat improved the unit’s performance. It also published a technical support document warning users—at least, those who were searching Apple’s support pages for answers after purchase—that their initial backups were going to be slow. “This may take overnight or longer,” said Apple, “depending on how much data you have.”

 

Part of the problem was inherent in using a wireless network to transfer tens or hundreds of Gigabytes of data, but part was due to the fact that the wireless network might be choked by the demands of various slow devices. So in early 2009, the company debuted a new version of the Time Capsule hardware with another performance-boosting feature: “dual-band mode,” which sought to improve wireless speeds by letting old 802.11b and 802.11g devices occupy one Wi-Fi network while newer 802.11n devices shared another, faster one. Time Capsule’s price was still too high—arguably even moreso than before given that its hard drive capacities were the same while competing alternatives’ prices had dropped—but when we saw that retailers were beginning to discount the 1TB version, we decided once again to give it a try.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the new Time Capsule is very much the same as the one we returned last year, and still has problems that users shouldn’t have to deal with. Even with a new MacBook as the only device on its 802.11n wireless network, the initial backup process remains maddeningly sluggish—it took us something like 8 or 10 hours to create a 100GB Time Machine image—and the software is still flaky. When we tried to troubleshoot some connectivity issues, we found Apple Discussions noting that the latest 7.4.2 software had screwed things up for a bunch of people, and in the absence of a fixed version, they were struggling to figure out how to downgrade back to earlier software. We went through similar issues; it’s a mess, so though the newer Time Capsule has some nifty little features, we’re not feeling entirely satisfied with it even at a discounted purchase price.

But despite these sorts of issues, we still are holding out hope for Time Capsule, because it feels like a missed opportunity for Apple—a product that is desperately needed for and technically capable of doing something great, yet it’s puttering around in the Apple product family doing something else. Put another way, a dual-band Time Capsule has the ability to serve as a multi-user media storage device, but due to problematic software and network connections, it’s been forced to stutter along as a comparatively boring background backup drive.

 

Nearly four years after the introduction of the first video-capable iPod, iTunes libraries—and users’ media libraries in general—have consequently become out-of-control huge. Even users who aren’t big music, video, or app downloaders no doubt have at least one digital camera, which quite possibly can make short movies as well. One of iLounge’s editors has an iPhoto library that contains only a small fraction of his total collection of digital pictures, and occupies over 30GB of hard drive space, while a larger, multi-year photo collection occupies over 130GB on a separate drive. His pared-down iTunes library, optimized for the lower-capacity iPod touch and iPhone devices, occupies another 36GB of hard disk space, with a full iTunes library requiring over 260GB on a separate drive, thanks mostly to videos. We’re not going to even get into the details of another Editor’s (Jesse Hollington’s) libraries, but suffice it to say that his media collection—and its backup systems—would put all but the most tech-savvy celebrities’ libraries to shame.

 

These large and increasing storage demands are compounded by a second issue: unless you’re single and living alone, you’re not the only one with media and photos in your home. In fact, there’s probably quite a bit of overlap between your library and a family member’s, and quite possibly you’ve had occasions where you’ve wanted to access a family member’s library to share content for entirely legal purposes. The more content we’ve accumulated, the more we’ve come to understand that having a central wirelessly connected pool for all that content, with separate “personal” sections—stored locally or wirelessly as users prefer—makes a lot more sense than maintaining multiple complete iTunes and photo collections on multiple hard drives. In essence, this would be a client and server-based approach to iTunes and iPhoto, with the Time Capsule server sitting in your home, ready to send audio, video, photos, and apps to whichever devices demand it.

Some might point to a number of possible impediments to achieving this: how would individuals’ iTunes accounts be handled in a shared library? Would an 802.11n wireless network really be fast enough to handle the media demands of multiple users, particularly in large families? And what about privacy concerns—the kid who has music or photos she doesn’t want to share in the pool with her parents, or vice-versa?

The answers are straightforward: iTunes and iPhoto pools would be opt-in, and the programs would continue to work exactly like they do today for content maintained separately and locally. If necessary, joint or family iTunes accounts could be treated as “parents” of individual accounts, letting a master user have ownership rights and the ability to restrict content access to individual users. Users would understand up front that they have the ability to hold files locally on their individual devices—temporarily or permanently—for guaranteed fast access, or take hiccup risks if streaming from the server. And the AirPort software would need to become smarter than it is now, helping a user to clearly, easily check how fast a given device’s network connection to the server is, and intelligently guiding him to take steps to optimize the connection for his actual home environment.

Yes, this would require some extra work on Apple’s part, but frankly, it’s been needed ever since iPods became capable of video playback, and is even more necessary now that iPhones are capable of creating videos and higher-resolution photos. These files are big, they’re numerous, and they’re not things that people want to just throw away. All that new content has to go somewhere, and making it easier to retrieve and enjoy anywhere is the key to both happier Apple users and increased sales of networked Apple servers, say nothing of the clients.

Readers, any thoughts?

Chicago, the iPhone 3GS, and iPods: Your Thoughts?

By Jeremy Horwitz | 06.29.09 | 5 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

Every time we visit a city for fun or business, we take note of the sorts of iPods and iPhones we see—and don’t see—on the streets and subways, as well as the performance of our iPhones as we’re traveling around. We spent this weekend in downtown Chicago for the annual Taste of Chicago, and were frankly very surprised at what we found: a higher density of iPod classics/5Gs than anywhere we’ve seen before, with a considerable number of second-generation iPod shuffles, and relatively few iPhones. New York City, by comparison, seemed like iPhone central even before the launch of the iPhone 3GS, and we saw lots of iPhones in Washington, D.C., as well; we’d imagine that these places must be overflowing with iPhone 3GS units by now.

One thing that doesn’t receive a lot of media attention—for obvious reasons—is the fairly significant variation in iPhone 3G performance from city to city. We were stunned, for instance, to see just how poorly the iPhone 3GS performed in our informal Chicago speed tests relative to the ones we ran in Western New York, which we previously thought was as slow as 3G could get nationally. Our Buffalo-area download speeds were roughly 50% faster than in Chicago, while upload speeds were two or three times faster; speeds and signal strength also dropped considerably indoors. Even more surprising was our iPhone 3GS’s screwy GPS performance in Chicago: the unit is almost exactly on target in Western New York, but our little blue locator dot was literally all over the map in downtown Chicago, frequently off by blocks and exhibiting issues in compass orientation, as well. A first-generation iPhone we brought along seemed to be doing a better job of triangulation without GPS hardware, amazing as that was.

 

Buggy software? A hardware issue? We’re not sure. And we’re also not sure whether 3G network issues or just storage concerns might have accounted for the huge number of hard drive-based iPods we saw. This may have also been the first city we’ve visited where the number of iPod shuffles we saw in use outnumbered iPod nanos by a wide margin. While our observations are clearly not scientific, we’d like to hear from readers in Chicago: what iPods or iPhones have you seen in heavy use there? Any ideas as to why they’re popular? Are you having 3G network issues? Seeing good 3G speeds? GPS performance? We’re curious.

 

On Signing 2-Year Contracts To Use Hand-Me-Down iPhone 3Gs

By Jeremy Horwitz | 06.24.09 | 18 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

So an AT&T customer shows up at an AT&T Store with a first-generation iPhone and a hand-me-down iPhone 3G—a common enough scenario this week given that quite a few people are giving up their 3G units for the iPhone 3GS. “I’d like to upgrade the old iPhone to the new one,” the customer says, handing over two phones. “Sure,” says AT&T, “we can do that. But you’ll have to sign a brand new two-year service agreement.” “Wait, what?” the customer asks, “you’re not giving me a phone, I’m bringing my own, so why do I have to commit to two years of service?” “Sorry,” says AT&T, “that’s Apple’s policy.”

Such was the case over the past day as we went through the process of attempting to transform a 2007 iPhone owner into an iPhone 3G user. We were familiar with the obvious upgrade charges—the fees, the $10 additional data charge, and the $5 additional charge for text messaging—and we were willing to pay them to AT&T for a year. The goal was to let the existing customer spend that year using a hand-me-down iPhone 3G, paying $200 extra ($900 total) for faster service, and then switch her over to the inevitable 2010 iPhone. But that plan wasn’t going to work if a two-year commitment was required, and it made almost as much sense to get a brand new iPhone 3G at full subsidy instead.

Interestingly, AT&T claimed that this mandatory contract policy only applies to Apple’s products, not to other self-supplied hardware, for whatever reason. Could the issue be subsidies? No; the old iPhone 3G’s subsidy had been paid off when we upgraded to a 3GS, paid the higher than normal price, the early upgrader fee, the activation fee, and signed a brand new two-year contract. So the iPhone 3G was free and clear, ready to be handed down or even sold.

Since it can’t be handed down, perhaps “sold” is the way to go. Given the choice between signing another two-year AT&T contract, or unlocking the phone and selling it to an overseas buyer for use on a different network, it’s tempting to go the latter route.

Readers, what have you done with your iPhone or iPhone 3G units after upgrading to 3GS? Have you sold them, handed them down, or just tossed them in a drawer? What has your service provider tried to do if you’ve tried the hand-me-down route? We’d like to know.

Postscript: Notes on iLounge’s Comprehensive iPhone 3GS Review

By Jeremy Horwitz | 06.22.09 | 1 comment |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

If you were following Backstage (or our RSS feed) over the weekend, you know that we posted two advance drafts of the iPhone 3GS review with interim testing results so that we could help users get some hard facts and data during the device’s launch weekend. We made the choice to do this because traffic this week surged so considerably due to the launches of 3GS and iPhone OS 3.0 that the site had a very brief outage on Wednesday, which our hosting team resolved shortly thereafter—it was obvious that readers really wanted to know what was going on with Apple’s latest hardware and software.

As a postscript to the now essentially complete review, for which I thank Jesse Hollington and Charles Starrett for their support, I wanted to share a few personal thoughts on the iPhone 3GS experience that are somewhat outside the scope of that article, but might be useful to some readers anyway.

* Would we upgrade to the iPhone 3GS, personally? Mixed answers here. Just as mentioned in the review, the 3GS is going to wow many 2007 iPhone owners, and impress some 2008 iPhone 3G owners enough to make the jump. Our internal statistics:

Every iLounge editor upgraded to iPhone 3G last year, one out of obligation rather than interest. One wife received an iPhone 3G last year, while two others (wife/fiancee) stayed with 2007 iPhones. This year, two iLounge editors upgraded to iPhone 3GS, both more out of obligation than interest, and one fiancee’s 2007 iPhone was upgraded to 3GS. All of the iPhone 3GS users are really enjoying their phones, though the editors don’t feel the upgrade from 3G was a necessary one for non-iLounge reasons. One wife with a 2007 iPhone said that she had no need to upgrade to 3G or 3GS given the $10/month higher data fees and $5+ text messaging charges. Friends and family with original iPhones are all either considering or genuinely excited about upgrades, but those with iPhone 3Gs are not. We’ve been hearing everything from “meh” to “nice, but maybe next time.”

* What do we really like the most about 3GS? There’s no single highlight; it’s just a snappier, more capable version of last year’s phone. The whole “S is for Speed” pitch struck us as a little cheesy, and the new model’s performance doesn’t evoke “wow” moments, but it definitely feels faster and better than before. Being able to switch between camera, phone, web, and map features, and having good to great experiences with each, is definitely great.

* What is especially worth seeing in the iPhone 3GS review? Definitely look at the full-sized comparison photos and the YouTube video clips. We’re posting more, but the ones that are up tell a lot about the iPhone 3GS’s camera capabilities—obviously, pictures are worth a thousand words (or more).

* What do we really dislike the most about 3GS? The battery life. It’s seriously a major issue, with 3G calling and data as the most important offenders, the sharp drain during video recording and GPS/compass-aided mapping as the strongest offenders, and the inconsistent video playback times as a point of continued curiosity. We’re also concerned about more case cracks and scratches after what our well-kept iPhone 3Gs looked like after weeks of ownership. Hopefully Apple has made some quiet improvements to the 3GS shell to stop the cracks, at least.

* iPhone 3G as lame duck? We were surprised to hear comments at certain stores that iPhone 3G inventory—including $99 8GB and discontinued $149 16GB models—was not moving as quickly as expected prior to the iPhone 3GS launch. Normally, the $99 price point would be a real draw for a device like the 3G, but it seems like the drop was overshadowed by the 3GS announcement, and people were waiting to see how much better the 3GS really was. The reports we heard on this were only anecdotal; we’ll see what happens now that 3GS is out.

Is it worth purchasing the 3G given that the 3GS is out and only $100 more? Our view would be “no” for most power users, but “sure” if none of 3GS’s extra features appeals to you. As Charles Starrett points out, “Since the data/talk plan requirements are the same, it seems to make little sense to purchase the 3G—if you can afford to pay for the data service over two years, you should at least be able to afford the $199 3GS.” The extra $100 strikes us as money well spent for the new model’s added capacity and capabilities.

By Request, a Preview of iLounge’s Comprehensive iPhone 3GS Review (Updated)

By Jeremy Horwitz | 06.21.09 | 0 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

When we first created Backstage, we did so for two reasons: to let readers preview articles that might or might not appear on the main iLounge web site, and to discuss topics such as video games, Mac computers, and the like that weren’t necessarily of interest to the broader iLounge readership. Over time, Backstage has shifted more to the off-topic stuff than the advance article previews.

We’ve received e-mails and comments requesting our initial findings on various details of the iPhone 3GS’s performance. Rather than just posting them in a summary table, I had hoped to post the roughly drafted iPhone 3GS review here on Backstage. But due to its 10-page length, posting it in preliminary form on the main iLounge page—with appropriate caveats as to its non-final nature—seemed like a better idea.

So, you can see our comprehensive but preliminary iPhone 3GS review at this link, complete with some very interesting battery, Bluetooth, audio quality, and screen quality findings, as well as notes on compass and GPS performance, photo and video recording performance, and more. Pictures, audio, and video are for the moment linked rather than in-line. There will be a ton more before the review is done. Enjoy what’s there for now.

Updated: The second draft, radically expanded, is available now.

Lightning Review: What Happened to Gizmodo’s iPhone 3GS Hands-On? (Updated)

By Charles Starrett | 06.15.09 | 5 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

File this one under “weird:” shortly after Monday’s WWDC keynote ended—concluding of course with the announcement of the iPhone 3GS—we spotted a group of broadcast journalists huddled around the new device. As we approached from the side, as to not ruin the interview, we were told that there would be no photography, video opportunities, or hands on time for anyone other than broadcast journalists. Okay; Apple’s on-stage demonstrations don’t give these journalists the extended product close-ups they need for television footage. Fair enough.

Thus, we were surprised to find several hours later that Apple had given Gizmodo extended hands on access to the iPhone 3GS, which was written about in an article titled “iPhone 3GS Hands On,” and complete with at least one picture of a new black 32GB unit that was resting face down on its box. Network problems seemed to be making the page load inconsistently, so we decided to wait until later to see what Brian Lam had to say about it. Only that never happened.

It is unclear exactly who made the order, or when it was made, but shortly after the story initially showed up online—including on sites such as Techmeme and Digg—it vanished from the pages of Gizmodo. Searching Gizmodo’s site for the article brings up nothing, and the page isn’t even available in Google Cache format. Only those links from Digg and Techmeme persist as evidence that the link was there, suggesting that incredibly, without any explanation, Gizmodo pulled its own seemingly exclusive hands-on for a product that is no doubt going to be one of the biggest gadgets of the year. Why would a gadget site ever do that?

It doesn’t seem to be for lack of information. Our cache of the story shows that Gizmodo was told how to calibrate the new digital compass (“twisting a figure 8 in the air with the phone”), given an opportunity to record video (“from our initial testing, [it] does so very well. Everything about the experience is fast.”), try voice control (“we tested the ‘dial’ command… as well as the call command… Both worked perfectly—as you can see on the video.”), and even was given an opportunity to compare Safari speeds between the iPhone 3G, Palm Pre, and iPhone 3G S (“Safari on the 3GS is also noticeably faster than the 3G, but also faster than the Pre”).

So what’s the deal here? Is the fix in—another example of Apple buttering up its buddies with early hardware access in exchange for a promise to hold their comments until just before launch day? Or is there another explanation? Whatever the case, it seems like Apple’s representative lied to us about who was getting access—notably, something that happened with last year’s iPhone 3G—or Gizmodo had a friend on the inside who offered an exclusive, then retracted it. Or maybe both. In any case, it appears that Apple wasn’t quite ready for Gizmodo to tell its story, as it all but completely disappeared with CIA-like quickness. We’ve requested comment from Gizmodo and will let you know what, if anything, we hear back.

Updated: Following our Friday story on this, Gizmodo offered and we accepted an opportunity to hear the story behind the retraction of its hands-on, but days later, it still has not been forthcoming. Meanwhile, a reader pointed out that videos of the iPhone 3GS were also posted by Gizmodo to YouTube, and then withdrawn around the same time as the story and photography. Especially in light of the BBC report on Apple’s threatened ‘sour’ relations with certain journalists, we remain curious as to what sort of influence Apple has been exerting over iPhone 3G S coverage.

Flip UltraHD: $200, Apple-style Simple HD Video Recording, With Small Caveats

By Jeremy Horwitz | 06.11.09 | 2 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

There are five or six different ways to measure the inherent value of a device, or lack thereof, but the deliberate simplicity of Pure Digital Technologies’ Flip UltraHD reduces the need for such analysis. It has been designed to do a total of two things—record and play back 720p videos—and do so at a lower price than products that attempt to do more. There are no complex controls to master, batteries to replace, or memory cards to fool around with. Everything you need to make it work and work well is in the package when you open it. And when you’re finished using it, there’s no series of special steps to follow to get your videos off of it, recharge it, or anything else. It is Apple-style simplicity applied to HD video recording, in a boxy package that would not pass Apple industrial design muster, yet has surpassed any Apple device yet released in video recording functionality.

Flip UltraHD measures roughly 4” by 2” by 1”, has a lens on the front, a 2” color screen and buttons on the back, a power button on the left, full-sized USB and mini HDMI connectors on the right, and a standard tripod-compatible screw mount on the bottom. You can choose a soft touch rubber black or white coating for most of the body, with the rest in chrome. Each comes with a hand strap, a rechargeable battery, and a carrying bag. That’s it.

 

Notable is the fact that Pure Digital’s included battery can be popped out at any time and replaced with a simple pair of AA batteries if you need extra juice. This is the sort of nice design decision that lets users have a great solution in the box—a seemingly proprietary rechargeable cell—plus the temporary, non-proprietary additional power flexibility they need in emergencies. If only Apple could learn from these guys.

 

Want to record a video? Press the power button, then the big red button on back to record, and hit it again to stop. Point at your subjects and shoot video; your only controls while recording are plus and minus buttons for very limited 2x digital zoom functionality. When you’re done, you can press a play button to watch and hear your recorded video, skip through previously recorded videos with forward and back buttons, adjust the volume of the unit’s integrated speaker, and delete videos with a trash can button.

 

Apart from initially telling it the current date, time, and your preference for confirmation tones and a light to let people know they’re being recorded, there’s nothing else to do—no focus requirements, filters, lens cap, nothing. Every H.264 video it makes is recorded with the same 1280x720 resolution, 9Mb/s bit rate, and stereo audio format, consuming roughly 65MB per minute. UltraHD includes 8GB of storage space, good for two hours of video recording, and the included battery came out of the box with enough power to record over 30 minutes of video; fully charged, it can roughly fill the 8GB before needing recharging or replacement. To recharge, you simply leave UltraHD plugged into the same USB port you’re using to extract its videos; a pop-out USB arm connector eliminates your need to carry around a cable, and computers treat the device like a plugged in camera for easy file copying.

 

Pure Digital’s approach obviously has its positives and negatives. On the positive side, it has come up with a device that creates 720p movies so effortlessly that anyone could make them, remove them from the device, and play them back; the only thing it doesn’t include in the box is the mini HDMI cable needed to watch the videos immediately on a TV. Videos are colorful, entirely audible, and more detailed than the lower-resolution ones created by most digital still cameras today. UltraHD’s lens is fixed and not capable of either true depth of field or close-up macro videos, but it creates entirely acceptable videos of its subjects at distances greater than a foot or so away. Color balance is handled automatically, and quite well under normal indoor and outdoor lighting conditions. There’s no need to convert the videos in order to start watching immediately on a Mac or PC, via iTunes or other software. (See video samples here and here.)

 

But on the negative side, for whatever reason, once they’re in iTunes, the H.264 videos can’t be viewed on an Apple TV without conversion, despite Apple TV’s support for both H.264 and 720p video playback. They also need to be converted if you want to watch them on an iPod or iPhone. iTunes will handle both types of conversions for you, slowly; Pure Digital includes free Mac and PC FlipShare software right on the device, as well, capable of creating DVDs, YouTube and MySpace videos from its own files, but nothing specific to Apple’s devices. Whatever else might be said about the iPhone 3GS’s comparatively low-resolution 640x480 video recording capabilities, at least the video files it creates will be immediately viewable on all of Apple’s increasingly popular portable devices. Similarly, editing has to be handled with separate software such as FlipShare or iMovie rather than on the device itself.

 

Finally, it goes without saying, but should also be mentioned that the UltraHD’s videos are not going to blow away users of conventional or high-end HD video cameras. Lens limitations aside, they’re also subject to the sort of graininess, slight fuzziness, and diminished low-light quality one would reasonably expect from a low-priced video recorder. Videos made on a year-old, consumer-grade Canon HD camera that cost three times as much were sharper and cleaner, benefitting from optical zoom, higher bitrates, less grain, and user-selectable resolutions. But of course they were better in those ways; what’s noteworthy is that some of Flip UltraHD’s videos were at least as nicely color saturated—some would say even better.

 

There’s no dispute or surprise in the fact that users can spend more money and get complex, powerful HD video cameras these days. For $200, Flip UltraHD enables a person with zero technical expertise to create high-definition videos that look quite good on a computer monitor or HDTV—much better than lower-resolution ones—and offers praiseworthy convenience of playback, connectivity and recharging, besides. If you’re looking for an affordable way to create simple HD videos, it’s certainly worthy of consideration, unless you’re looking for a tool to create immediately iPod, iPhone, and Apple TV-ready content. Perhaps Pure Digital has something up its sleeve for that purpose, as well…?

Why’s My Mac Slower & Running Its Fans After Updating iTunes?

By Jeremy Horwitz | 06.04.09 | 8 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

Back when we were Windows PC users, there was a standard protocol to be followed after adding or updating software to the computer: run Norton Disk Doctor. Or SystemWorks. Or some other third-party program capable of fixing all the damage that was accidentally or thoughtlessly done to the computer’s registry by an installer when something new was added. It was a mess, a pain, and one of many things we were thrilled to be without when we switched to Macs. We were even more impressed when we saw our Macs taking an extra minute or so after certain installations to optimize the hard disk: that one minute delay reduced countless potential future slowdowns.

But in recent months, post-installation blues with Apple software have created problems for our Macs, too. We didn’t write about the last one, the screwy Mac OS 10.5.7 update, because we’re not a Mac OS-focused site. For that one, two iLounge editors saw their aluminum MacBooks stuck in blue screen loops after trying to upgrade from 10.5.6 using Software Update. Ugh—it was a throwback to the Microsoft days. But the latest one is iTunes 8.2, QuickTime, and Front Row-related: install them and you may notice that your Mac’s running slower, its fans are constantly spinning, and its battery is draining faster than it did before.

 

To be completely fair, this isn’t the first time that iTunes, QuickTime, or other Apple software has done this sort of thing, but the problem has become a fairly serious one: why should users have to suffer for days, weeks, or longer with lower battery life and hotter machines after installing all but mandatory updates to core applications? Thankfully, there’s a fix, a solution that is free, easy to use, and will almost certainly improve your Mac’s performance. It’s called Disk Utility, and it’s hidden in the Utilities folder on your Mac—a folder that’s tucked into your Applications folder.

 

You can find the program with Spotlight at the top right of your Mac’s screen, but we’d advise adding the Utilities folder to your list of Places (see screenshot) by going into your Applications folder, dragging the Utilities folder into the sidebar, and having it there for reference whenever you need it. [We also use the more powerful, free third-party application Onyx, which hasn’t been updated yet for 10.5.7.]

 

Disk Utility does a number of things, generally (but not always) quickly and well. Here, the only things you need to know are to select your hard drive from the list on the left of the window, and press the button called “Repair Disk Permissions.” This starts an invariably harmless process that goes through and fixes screwy file information on your Mac. After five minutes, it will most likely have found a bunch of Apple programs with messed up “permissions,” which it will fix instantly. Apple’s most recent iTunes and QuickTime updates led to over 60 permissions errors, all found and “repaired” by Disk Utility. Then you can restart your Mac, and you’ll most likely find that it’s running cooler, quieter, and faster.

 

But not always. When we ran Disk Utility a second time to take additional screenshots for this article, we were surprised to discover that some of the problems had persisted, and Disk Utility “repaired” them again. We’re not quite sure how or why that would be happening, but it did, and iTunes, QuickTime, and Front Row were all listed as being to blame. The same thing happened a third time, too. Amazingly, we’ve found ourselves back to where we were in the Windows and Norton days, running applications just to keep our Macs them running properly, and not always succeeding. Here’s hoping that Snow Leopard and the next iTunes release bring things back to the way they should be.

On Lessons Learned, or Why iPhone OS 3.0 Will Hit Before Next-Gen iPhones

By Charles Starrett | 06.02.09 | 14 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

On July 10, 2008, Apple prematurely released iPhone Software 2.0, setting in motion one of the biggest launch flubs the company has ever seen. The following day, as the iPhone 3G went on sale and many current iPhone and iPod touch users began downloading the new software—which required activation, just like a new phone—Apple’s activation servers ground to a halt, causing enormous delays at Apple and carrier stores around the world. Amazingly, the server failures left some new iPhone 3G customers with useless handsets, unable to revert to their prior, working phones, but also unable to use their new, expensive iPhones. It was a PR catastrophe for the company, that, when combined with early MobileMe and App Store issues—both of which launched that same day—took the company weeks if not months to completely clear up.

This experience is why those of you anxiously awaiting the release of iPhone OS 3.0 for the iPhone and iPod touch should expect the update to become available sooner rather than later. After enduring the problems that a simultaneous launch schedule caused last year, we’re expecting that Apple will get 3.0 out the door well ahead of the next-generation iPhone, in hopes of getting as many users as possible migrated to the new software prior to launch day. Yesterday’s release of iTunes 8.2, which is required for iPhone OS 3.0, only lends further credence to the notion that Apple does not want to deal with another mess like the one it had on its hands last July, and a staggered release for the new OS and new iPhone seems like one of the most obvious ways to ensure that this year’s iPhone release goes as smoothly as possible.

On “Zune HD,” or, Why “iPhone/iPod HD” Might Sound Great, But Suck

By Jeremy Horwitz | 05.27.09 | 6 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

A month and a half after the first images leaked out, Microsoft officially confirmed what it was tacitly acknowledging before: the next generation of Zune is coming, and it’s called Zune HD. As an iPod touch competitor, it features a new body casing, multi-touch screen, web browser (Internet Explorer) and so on. It looks pretty cool, as deliberately angular devices go, and though the last few Zunes have been also-rans, we’re open-minded to the prospect that it might offer something of interest when it ships this Fall.

But what’s with the Zune HD name? Ever since that part leaked out, we’ve been thinking about similar naming possibilities for Apple devices: “iPhone HD,” “iPod HD,” and so on just have a nice, progressive ring to them. Microsoft chose well when it picked that suffix. But since HD implies “high-definition,” consumers are going to assume that the devices will offer superior video display resolution—perhaps something approaching the bottom rung of modern HD televisions. At least, that’s what we thought before Microsoft’s announcement today.

As it turns out, Zune HD has a decidedly non-HD 3.3” screen, smaller than the iPhone/iPod touch displays and with fewer pixels (480x272 versus 480x320). It should look a lot like the iPhone and iPod touch screens that debuted almost two years ago, minus of course Apple’s interface, and apparently the ability to fit the whole word Marketplace on screen at once next to an icon. So where’s the HD here? From a video perspective, it’s not in the box: Zune HD will only do HD-ready, 720p video output if you purchase an optional HD video dock. To be clear, we have no objection to such a dock—the iPhone and iPod touch frankly need one.* But it would be shady to call a device “HD” when it doesn’t do anything HD without additional parts.

 

Microsoft avoids that with a cheesy disclaimer** and a little trick: it’s including HD Radio. Yes, that HD Radio, the one we’ve previously covered with little joy, as the receivers have been expensive, mediocre at tuning in “HD” stations, and all but pointless—in short, digital radio designed by the radio industry for the radio industry, rather than for customers. We’ve only seen one really good iPod/iPhone audio system with HD Radio, and even then, the feature’s not worth paying any premium to purchase. The chances of it working in a portable device are only higher than the chances that it will work well.

 

Tossing the HD suffix onto a product’s name is a nice marketing idea, but doing so without having the right HD hardware inside is a mistake. Give us the 800-pixel-wide, next-gen screens and HD video output we’re looking for and we’ll be glad to jump on the HD bandwagon—by comparison, HD Radio support seems like little more than a cheap attempt to make a product match its otherwise unfit name. Hopefully Apple won’t be led down the same path.

[* = Note: Some current-generation Apple devices can already output video via existing Apple Composite AV Cables at 480p, the bottom-rung of HD standards—also known as Enhanced Definition. The reason we care about “higher than 480p” output is simple: since iPods and iPhones don’t support the playback of higher-definition 720p videos, many iTunes users are forced to maintain separate SD and HD video libraries, SD files for the iPod/iPhone and HD files for computer and Apple TV viewing. There are many arguments to be had over whether it’s better to keep doing this because of the limited storage capacities of some iPod and iPhone models, but ultimately, higher-capacity devices will end this debate.

** = “Zune HD & AV Dock, and an HDTV (all sold separately) are required to view video at HD resolution. Supported 720p HD video files play on the device, downscaled to fit the screen at 480 x 272 – not HD resolution.”]

 

Updated: Any similarity between the Zune HD’s promotional web page and Apple’s iPod web pages is obviously purely unintentional.

iPod nano 5G, Next-Gen iPhone Design Changes Revealed?

By Jeremy Horwitz | 05.26.09 | 52 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

You know that we don’t run future iPod stories without having a lot of faith in the information. Thus far, our source has a perfect track record for accuracy. Based on the information we’ve received, this is what the fifth-generation iPod nano will look like, compared with its fourth-generation predecessor.

As noted in the second image, the screen gets widened to a 1.5:1 aspect ratio, but still retains the Click Wheel of all prior nano models—in other words, no touchscreen controls this year for the iPod nano. The Click Wheel shifts down further on the new nano’s body, shrinks a little, and sees the size of the center Action button decrease as well. Finally, there’s a camera on the back in an unusual location, one which conceivably might be blocked by hands… except when the iPod nano is corner-gripped for photography. It will debut at the same time as the new iPod touch, between July and September. Our gut feeling is September.

Also of interest: we’ve been told that the next-generation iPhone will come in six versions: two storage capacities each for 3G, enhanced 3G (“3.5G/3.75G”), and mainland China versions of the phone, which will have the same size and general design of the current model, but with a less scratchable matte plastic body. Each of the three versions has been made to match the telecom systems of specific countries, so users in one country shouldn’t expect to have the option between a “slow iPhone” and “fast iPhone.” As before, you’ll get capacity options and different colors.

Let the comments commence.

Could Plants vs. Zombies Be PopCap’s Next Big iPhone Game?

By Jeremy Horwitz | 05.19.09 | 0 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

It seems like Marketing 101: “Lots of guys like zombies. Lots of girls like plants. Some people like zombies and plants. So how about a game where plants fight zombies?” PopCap has a sense of humor, and knows casual games as well or better than anyone, so it was a fair bet that it could figure out a way to develop a funny, accessible title that combined these concepts together.

That’s what Plants vs. Zombies ($20, Mac/PC) is: a lighthearted game where you’re given strips of grass, each with nine squares, and various types of plants that can fill those squares to fight off hordes of incoming zombies. You need sunlight points to plant new plants, and can use sunflowers to more quickly accumulate sunlight. Most of the plants are offensive peashooters of various sorts, bombs, or landmines; nuts can be placed between your plants and the zombies to give the zombies something to gnaw on while they’re being shot by the peashooters. Virtually every level you survive, you get another item to use against the zombies for the next level.

 

That’s until you get the note.

 

Some levels deviate from the formula by spitting out plant after plant in rapid succession to let you knock down even faster-moving zombie armies. This breaks up the standard action—the first such stage is zombie bowling, the next is the all-out assault on your house. Survive that, and you move on to stages in the darkness.

 

And, of course, PopCap has brought its typically amusing artwork and writing to play here. We’re only 15 levels into the game so far, but enjoying it quite a bit. Could this possibly be coming for the iPhone any time soon? If it does, we think PopCap will have another big hit on its hands.

Geeking Out Right Now, or, the iPod/iPhone Mini Home Theater

By Jeremy Horwitz | 05.14.09 | 4 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

We may cover them on a daily basis, but we really don’t geek out on new iPod and iPhone accessories—it’s not often that we see items that are individually awesome, and far less common for us to find a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup combination where two items come together to form something greater than their separate parts.

Behold the iPod and iPhone-compatible mini home theater we just put together. It starts with the BenQ Joybee GP1 Mini Projector for video, then adds the Boston Acoustics i-DS3 Plus for audio—three matching glossy white plastic boxes that are individually optimized to do separate things extremely well, coming together to create a clean-looking, powerful AV experience for a small, dark room. Notably, the i-DS3 Plus is both iPod- and iPhone-compatible, with video-out functionality that supports both devices.

 

Over the past few days, we’ve been playing with the GP1 projector to figure out what it can and can’t do. As noted in our updated First Look, it has a smaller-than-Mac mini footprint, but pumps out a DVD-quality video image that’s pixel-level crisp, nicely colored, and reasonably bright. In a moderately lit room, it can produce a respectably viewable 6-foot image on a flat wall, improving in brightness as the image shrinks down to a minimum 14” size, or as the room’s ambient lighting decreases. If you’re in a truly dark room, even better. GP1 has some nifty features to dynamically shift its color palette automatically to adjust for wall color, its projecting angle for the angle it’s mounted on, and so on. The integrated speaker’s not too bad, either.

 

But it’s not going to deliver a theater-quality listening experience. That’s where the i-DS3 Plus comes in. While the main enclosure looks a lot like the i-DS2, it actually contains four speaker drivers - twin 3.5” full-range drivers like the ones in i-DS2, but also two tweeters for superior high-frequency performance. Even without assistance from an additional speaker, the main i-DS3 unit sounds quite good. Add the wireless subwoofer in and the excitement begins: the six-inch speaker inside the sub just gets plugged into the wall wherever you want to place it, and doesn’t need to be tethered to the docking main speaker system. It roars with bass, balanced nicely by the drivers in the main dock, and boasts 100 Watts of total power. Out of the box, with very little hookup work required, i-DS3 and the GP1 together transformed an iPhone 3G into a mini theater for our Dark Knight viewing pleasure. All for just under $1,000.

 

Could a similar system be put together for less? Yes. Could a different system be put together for a similar price? Again, yes. If you’re looking for a simple 5-driver audio system without the fancy wireless feature, we’ve reviewed a number of options, many of which are now discounted and/or being closed out. Similarly, you could substitute some inexpensive TV for the projector, at least, if you’re willing to accept a much smaller sized image than the GP1 is capable of displaying. Yet there’s something about the elegance of this combination that’s truly exciting to us—it’s a nice “price no object” iPod/iPhone mini home theater solution, with individual pieces that could be the missing puzzle pieces for users who are halfway through similar projects. We’ll have more to say on both of these accessories in the days to come.

On Bringing TiVo to Needy iPod and iPhone Users (Including Us)

By Jeremy Horwitz | 04.29.09 | 10 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

As mentioned on Backstage yesterday, we’re perturbed by buggy computer-dependent TV show recording solutions, and having used TiVo devices for years now—with reservations—we’ve been unwilling to buy into competing and inferior cable provider-rented DVRs. So we were interested in this smart, five-point post from Engadget’s Nilay Patel yesterday on fixing some long-standing problems with TiVo, particularly one section of the first point:

“The same goes for getting video out and onto portable devices—you’re being totally shown up by open-source projects like iTiVo and pyTiVo. TiVo Desktop Plus shouldn’t be an afterthought your customers have to pay extra for—it should be the defining feature of your product. Record a show, have it on your phone the next morning to watch on the train—no cable company can compete with that.”

Since TiVo is listening, we’d like to say a few words to the company as well—actually, we’d like to truly underscore that particular paragraph, because Nilay’s really correct, and the importance of that message might have been missed given all of the other suggestions. As is the case at Engadget, iLounge’s editors are TiVo fans. We have looked at the other options out there and determined that there is nothing else that we’d rather be using for recording TV programs. The TiVo interface, apart from needed resolution and input device upgrades, is the best around for DVR functionality. It says something that Apple TV has been out and attempting to compete somewhat in the same space for more than two years, but we still prefer using TiVo to the Apple TV; in fact, we’d give up the Apple TV well before the TiVo. By a wide margin. So TiVo, congratulations on doing a lot right.

But you’ve really, truly missed the boat when it comes to attracting new customers and giving your current customers what they really want: media portability. There are now tens of millions of video-hungry iPod and iPhone owners desperate for a way to watch last night’s episode of Lost on their morning train ride to the office, without paying $2 for the episode or waiting until it shows up on iTunes. If they already own TiVo hardware, they have libraries of dozens of shows that are all but useless unless they’re willing to plop down in front of one specific TV to watch them. And that’s not the way people want to consume media these days. Instead of following this obvious, growing trend, your business strategy for the past couple of years has been to try to shoehorn as much Apple TV-like stuff into TiVo boxes as possible. Note: Apple TV isn’t very popular. And it doesn’t do the one thing you guys have and Apple fans really want, namely record videos that could be watched anywhere. At least, in the right format.

The solution is simple for all of your current Series 2 and Series 3 customers: we need better, faster tools for converting on-TiVo content into iPod and iPhone formats. While we’d prefer an iPod or iPhone dock with an integrated H.264 encoder, you’re likely to run into pricing and other problems there, so for the time being, we’d live with a better, cross-platform tool for computers to handle this conversion. While Engadget’s right to suggest that “you’re being totally shown up by open-source projects like iTiVo and pyTiVo,” that’s mostly a statement of just how awkward Desktop Plus and Toast are by comparison with the simple “just export my TiVo stuff now, and fast” interface people have been waiting for. A simple, free, official TiVo tool for PC and Mac users—with support for H.264 hardware accelerators (this)—is way overdue. Trying to monetize the tool rather than marketing it as a reason to buy TiVo rather than a cable company’s competing DVR has been a colossal mistake.

What about the next generation of TiVo devices? Series 4 TiVo needs to encode all of its videos in MPEG-4 format, preferably H.264, for direct export to the iPod and iPhone without the need for transcoding. Do this, and we’ll not only upgrade—we’ll go back to recommending that other people buy TiVos, too. A recording settings menu needs to provide an easy “iPod maximum” output option, and your hardware and firmware need to be ready to boost encoding to meet whatever Apple’s new maximum bitrate will be in mid- to late-2009. Best guess target specs would be 720p, a la iTunes HD video content. Yes, a resolution bump will require you to deal with the studios, and yes, those studios are getting paid around $2.10 per iTunes HD download for their shows. Regardless, your pitch is simple: official TiVo-encoded HD videos will still contain all those commercials that people are paying Apple not to deal with. They can be Media Access Key locked. And neither the iPod nor the iPhone have a 30-second auto-skip button. Users have a better chance of watching commercials on Apple’s devices, at least briefly, than they do on a TV-tethered TiVo unit.

Engadget’s other points are important, too, but true iPod and iPhone support should have been a gimme for your company years ago, and it’s even more important today than it was when the first video iPod launched. Kids with $149 iPod nanos want ways to carry around their favorite TV shows now—and so do adults with $299 iPhone 3Gs and $399 iPod touches. It’s time to decide: are you going to be the company that makes this possible, or are you going to let someone else own a market that could easily be yours?

On EyeTV, or, How Buggy Software Is Ruining Good Apple Hardware

By Jeremy Horwitz | 04.28.09 | 12 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

Longtime iLounge readers know that we love to try new products, a fact that’s borne out by the sheer number of software and accessory reviews we publish every week. To the best of our recollection, there hasn’t been a weekday in the past five or so years that we haven’t spent playing around with at least a few things, and the general rule of thumb is that if we test something, we review it rather than holding our opinions back. Unless we’re buried under a pile of new items and need to prioritize what’s most important, it’s very unusual for us to sit on a product for a really long time without saying something about it. What follows is the story of an exception—actually, a number of recent exceptions—to that rule.

We’re most concerned with Elgato Systems’ EyeTV Hybrid, which we started testing in January, then put down in hopes that a software update to its EyeTV 3.1 software would fix the major problems we were having. Last night, we decided to take another stab at reviewing it with the updated 3.1.1 software, and spent several hours this morning trying to get it working. The problems were still there. As our accessory reviewing policy is based on a simple premise—products are supposed to “just work” when we get them, without the need to spend time digging through arcane settings or talking with a company’s tech support department—the typical accessory we’d cover would have received a D or an F based on the experiences we had. But because we’ve tried to be accommodating of the recent, major growth of the iPod and iPhone software scene—particularly in the App Store—we decided some time ago to try taking a wait-and-see attitude on certain releases, watching to see whether they got fixed or changed significantly after they first began to be sold.

That’s turned out to be a mistake. It sent the message that users—including us—were willing to tolerate patch after patch after patch to make a program work properly, a state of affairs that Apple has allowed to develop since the App Store premiered, and arguably before that with buggy iTunes, iPod, and iPhone software releases. Instead of software that “just works,” the App Store in particular has been spreading a staggering quantity of buggy, “we’ll fix it later” products and their updates alongside a small number of apps that are extremely polished, and a huge number that are utter junk, all apparently counting towards the same “billion downloads” number. As reviewers, we’ve had to decide whether and how to cover these releases, specifically whether to simply pan something outright when it doesn’t work properly on first release, or how to adjust a rating properly for various types and degrees of bugs. When possible, we’ve tried to explain our rationale in our reviews, but at some point talking about the process rather than the products takes a toll on us, and surely you, too.

There’s an additional behind-the-scenes component that you mightn’t know about, as well. Due to the sheer volume of products we review, and the requests we receive from developers for coverage, we now find our e-mail boxes filling up with requests for help finding, describing, and fixing bugs; you may have noticed that the App Store’s “reviews” these days often read more like bug reports than ratings of finished products. Unfortunately, we don’t have the time or desire to serve as beta testers, chasing down and reporting bugs to companies every time we find them; there are just too many products and too many bugs these days. Our job is to test products from the standpoint of the typical user, and tell you whether they work, or don’t, and we don’t have the ability to even respond individually to all of the e-mail requests we receive from software developers these days.

That brings us back to EyeTV Hybrid, a piece of hardware that depends upon a piece of software to be useful for anything. Back in version 3.0, which shipped with the prior version of the Hybrid hardware, the EyeTV software relied upon a free service for TV program listings, but then Elgato switched to TV Guide—and a $20 annual charge after the first year—for those listings. Upon getting the 3.1 software, we used the Setup Assistant to set up a TV Guide account, complete with a one-year listing service credit, and the listings didn’t work. We’ve had this sort of thing happen with Elgato software in the past, and know that we sometimes have to wait a couple of weeks for an updated release before it gets fixed, then add a postscript to our original review. As you might imagine or know from our re-reviewing policy, which we changed back in 2005 because so many companies were releasing buggy products, this isn’t something we do or want to do with any regularity, and we don’t think it’s fair to either us or the early adopters who purchase new products and then have to wait around for them to work.

 

For whatever reason, the issues we were having with the EyeTV software continue today. Yes, we went back through the software again and repeated its setup and settings screens. Fruitlessly, we even went over to TV Guide’s web site and tried to set up an account there; this attempt at a workaround didn’t work, and we still couldn’t figure out what was going on. The program’s settings menu has a progress indicator that shows that it’s downloading listings, but it quickly stops, and never displays them. Separately, the software locates a huge number of local stations on the hardware’s TV tuner, but doesn’t identify any of the digital cable ones. And then there’s the new FM radio tuner that’s built into EyeTV Hybrid: we can only get the software to find a single local FM channel, and can’t figure out a way to manually tune others. Certainly, there are people out there who aren’t having issues with the software. But surely there are others out there, most likely people far less experienced with computer hardware, software, and accessories than us, who are having similar problems. We couldn’t quickly find answers on Elgato’s site, even if they’re buried somewhere there, and we feel strongly that users shouldn’t have to dig around or contact a company to make something like this work. For all of its limitations, a TiVo strikes us as a much easier, consumer-focused solution for TV recording at this point in time.

 

At the end of the day, spotlighting truly superb, consumer-friendly products is really what iLounge is all about. We bought Apple’s devices because we realized after years of using competitors that life was too short to waste waiting around for technical support. Even if it makes mistakes sometimes, Apple knows better than most companies that people are paying a premium for its products to “just work,” and that it needs to be focused on providing working solutions to customers rather than excuses or delays. Yet Apple’s third-party developers aren’t all on the same page. Thanks in no small part to the App Store, but also other considerations, far too many companies have taken on a “ship first, fix later” mentality for products, leaving customers in the lurch while they wait for things—even broken major features—to be fixed. This needs to change, and better pre-release bug testing is the solution.

As tempting as it may be right now for developers to focus on churning out more software, people are looking right now for quality, not quantity, and where software’s concerned, the mark of quality is becoming very clear: it has to be polished, bug-free, and deliver value to the user right out of the gate. In the name of fairness, our software reviews going forward will hold all developers to the same standard we’ve used for accessory reviews for years: (a) if doesn’t deliver something special, (b) if you’re still looking for bug testers, or (c) if it’s not ready to be reviewed as-is, it shouldn’t have been released. End of story.