IOS 6: Higher Hanging Fruit | Hacker News Reader

IOS 6: Higher Hanging Fruit

imore.com

95 pointscmer90 comments

My wish is that Apple adds paid upgrades for apps in the app store.

I'm now close to releasing a major upgrade for an iPhone app, but these upgrades aren't going to be sustainable for me without paid upgrades (I don't want the new features to be IAP features)

In the long run, this will also benefit customers because paid-upgrades will help developers add more features to the app. Users who want the new features can pay for the upgrade. Users who don't want to pay more can stick with the older version of the app (and hopefully the app store will make it possible for users to re-install older versions of the app).

Can you release a version 2 separately?

The process would be a lot nicer though as an upgrade. To release a version 2 separately it is going to be harder to convert current customers.

Releasing a Version 2 (pro version, whatever you want to call it) and updating the original version to include Version 2 advertising is probably a close (though less ideal) alternative that could help with converting users.

Paid upgrades make no sense with IAP.

That would work well for enable/disable type of unlocking through IAP (eg: extra levels in a game), but how would it work if the whole app were overhauled? How would you determine who is re-downloading version 1 vs. who just purchased and should get version 2?

I can't believe I was about to type in a response to this. How do I delete a HN account?

Disagree wholeheartedly. Read this post to see why: http://blog.wilshipley.com/2012/03/mac-app-store-needs-paid-...

I think it's a great idea.

As a caveat to this I'd also like to see support added for hosting multiple versions of an app on the store at any given time.

A paid upgrade would also signify a breaking point for further free upgrades for any user that doesn't buy the upgrade. It's not really meant to work that way.

There is no obligation on the part of the developer to deliver _any_ upgrade.

A paid upgrade would be a clear signal to users of the free version that there will not be any free upgrades in the future. Some users would prefer knowing that over the uncertainty of 'will this app ever be updated?/will that one bug ever be fixed?' that they get when an app does not see updates for months/years.

"Fixes app crashing after extended usage. Only $2.99!"

Any app developer with that mentality probably is not going to make an iPhone app worth using in the first place

I see where you're coming from, but perhaps a better way is to make it possible to offer discounts for a new app. E.g. Funky App 2 at half price, and to be able to notify users of the app at that new price.

The rationale behind this is that users can still be notified of major release versions without forcing them to upgrade or die (sometimes people continue to support older versions for a bit while the new version gets traction). For example, the new version of Coda when it came out was pretty buggy compared to the older more stable version and app store reviews showed it, but there's no way for people buying Coda 2 on the app store to upgrade to Coda 3 at an upgrade price when it comes out. Having the ability to provide a discount for not only Coda 3, but other Panic software at upgrade time could generate more sales for things like Transmit etc.

I'm not singling out Panic, just a recent example.

I like this approach - it doesn't break the existing experience of free upgrades.

While I can understand where the GP's idea of paid upgrades is coming from, the not-infrequent occurrence of apps going from Paid-->Free + IAP is often enough that I can see paid upgrades being yet another way App Store users get taken advantage of.

Let's suppose you app uses an API, or whatever other thing that you do not have control over it. You make your app and release it. Then you make a paid upgrade. After some time, that thing your app rely on gets deprecated or changes. If you push an update to only people with the a paid upgrade you screw those who have not paid, leaving them with an non working app that they might have paid for. which sucks. But if you push a free update for everyone you will screw those who paid for the upgrade. which sucks.

So, what would you do?

And if you are unscrupulous, planned obsolesce combines with paid upgrades really well.

Alternate strawman: you do not use paid upgrades and at some point stop making enough money to continue developing and supporting the app and the API. All of your users are screwed , too.

It's easy to envision hypothetical situations and they're all already possible, leaving customers stuck having to gauge how serious a company is and how sustainable their business model will be. Paid upgrades don't change this situation but do offer a currently blocked way for developers to make apps with a long-term plan

> My wish is that Apple adds paid upgrades for apps in the app store.

As a user, I very much like the current business model. I'm actually more willing to buy an app because I know won't be socked every X months with a fee to update.

It's a very transparent & easy to understand model.

I understand you, as the app creator, wanting to raise more revenue, but I would prefer that cost be front-loaded.

I think the major mobile operating systems are rapidly approaching maturity. I don't expect any radical changes in Android, iOS or WP at this point. iOS in particular hardly looks different than what Steve demoed in 2007.

This is also why I think Android's upgrade problem may not turn out to be so important in practice. Even if the carriers utterly fail to roll out OS upgrades, the 2-3 year device churn cycle will eventually get new versions in play and ICS has fixed most of the glaring problems with the OS and is "good enough". Once Google makes major components like the browser upgradable as apps it won't be that important to rev the base OS.

Isnt Windows Phone 8 a completely different codebase (namely WinRT) from WP 7.5?

It is. It will be using the NT kernel instead of Win CE 6/7. It will be sharing the same networking stacks, security subsystems as Windows 8.

I am amazed at how every single one idea in there is either stupid from the onset or the concept given is executed in an absolutely braindead way.

Just one: direct file access. The best thing Apple did for the learning curve of computing is destroy the concept of files for the casual user. The restrictions are put on the designer who has to figure out a creative way to enable task fulfillment within those restrictions. That is not a file picker (with Folders no less).

The most important enhancement is not even on the list: an iPad with several hundred apps is totally unwieldable. That should be fixed.

What's the solution to mobile file system management, then? Android has a lot going for it with its plug-and-play-esque filesystems: installed Dropbox? Now every app that uses the File API can save/load files from your Dropbox. On iOS each developer has to specifically implement each file service in each app - that's not the future.

no file system management. Or, put another way "We've invented this thing called an automobile" - "I don't get it, where do I attach my horses?"

So how do I open files made in app A in B?

I know right, where's the hitch? Where DO I attach my horses?

Are you suggesting that there is no need to have open file formats? No need to use more than 1 app on a single file?

I'm saying that your reasoning about the problem is stuck on outdated metaphors, and your imagination may be irrevokably damaged. You are asking the wrong questions, and so the only possible answer is "mu" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)

Let me put this another way- Having to work with files is a problem which is caused by computers. It is not a problem that existed before computers which is now solved by them. There are LOTS of alternative metaphors that have been tried and written about and researched before which you can simply just go find out about if you ever decide to look into it. The reason none of these alternatives have been adopted widely is because the file system metaphore has just simply been too ingrained. iOS is now the first system that has half a chance of shedding the metaphor once and for all, and people whose minds have been damaged by experience with file systems now simply want to add it back in. What a tragedy.

Okay here's a freebee. Have you ever been working on a large paper, and you forget to "save" your "file", and your computer crashes and you lose your work? That is a clue to the problems with this metaphor.

You're deflecting the question. Computers have documents, files, or whatever it is that you want to call them. Some times we want to edit them with more than 1 program. How do you propose that we do so, absent the file metaphor? Perhaps there is a better way, I look forward to your solution.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that we shouldn't have documents at all? We shouldn't have word processors or spreadsheets, or pictures. I can't tell because your comments lack directness.

But you still have "files" (or whatever you want to call them now) - how are they going to be managed? Borrowing the above example, if I'm composing an email I may want to bring in bits of data from several apps - a presentation, a picture, some formatted text, a geo location, etc. Doing this on an iPhone in a single email is currently impossible.

Wouldn't you just use copy and paste?

>> "The most important enhancement is not even on the list: an iPad with several hundred apps is totally unwieldable. That should be fixed."

This isn't a problem very many people face. The average iPhone user only has 65 apps installed (Source:Flurry) (I don't know about the iPad but I guess it would be around the same). Apple typically doesn't cater to the needs of a minority.

With folders you should be able to get a very large number of apps on your iPad's first home screen. I think it's around 400 (20 folders x 20 apps per folder).

That would force me to spend time to manually drag everything into folders with the same cataloguing problem you face in every other domain after which I would not really be able to locate anything else.

True, the fact that I have this many apps is a professional deformation, but still the app life cycle from installing/updating, to managing/organizing, to finding and launching one is severely broken from its mental model on.

I agree that managing a large number of apps can be tricky. What kind of solution would you like to see? Generally I just use spotlight. One swipe, type a few letters, and the app is found.

There is no way that Apple is going to add any sort of direct file access into iOS 6. This would completely undermine the work that they have done to get rid of the metaphor.

That said, there is certainly a problem with how files interact with iOS, mainly when it comes to email. Bridging the gap between the non-mobile file world and the pseudo-fileless iOS is going to be tricky.

Usually, if I want to share pictures or whatever, I am in the application that makes it easiest to navigate or search the content I want to send. Then I tap the share button. In fact I do a similar thing in Mac OSX. The iOS email client has only annoyed me a few times.

What they need is something like Intents on Android or maybe something like Services on Mac OS X.

It wouldn't be direct file access, but document access.

My vision for that is an API to expose documents in my app, and letting other apps open my editor in a fullscreen dialog, just like the email composer dialog.

The iOS today is very app-centric, and this would make it more document-centric.

Could you explain what is the matter with the filesystem metaphor?

It is too complicated and abstract for ordinary people to understand, and it is spiced with a sense of inherent danger since critical system files cannot be modified without doing significant damage to the system- system files that are right there along your ordinary user files which are impossible to find unless you can remember what you named it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface

> It is too complicated and abstract for ordinary people to understand

Evidence?

> spiced with a sense of inherent danger since critical system files cannot be modified without doing significant damage to the system- system files that are right there along your ordinary user files

Not on any operating system released in nearly 10 years.

> impossible to find unless you can remember what you named it.

UX is a problem, but eliminating files just creates other, in my opinion much worse problems, namely that all "files" or "documents" are tied to one specific application.

The evidence for the file system problem can be found in pretty much any book about user interfaces, but I have already linked to one in the post you are replying to. But aside from any arbitrary book on the subject, the evidence is not hard to find. All you really have to do is watch a computer novice try to use a computer for any length of time.

I don't know what operating systems you are using, but My mac with the latest operating system still has a multiple "library" folders and a "system" folder. I presume windows 7 still has a windows folder, a program files folder, and documents and settings folders. Any unix type system has /usr /bin /var /etc . These things are so apparently ingrained it appears you are incapable of perceiving them.

as for your third point, this is what is called the fallacy of the false dichotomy or false dilemma. The solution for this is that there's more than just the 2 options you are imagining.

> I don't know what operating systems you are using, but My mac with the latest operating system still has a multiple "library" folders and a "system" folder. I presume windows 7 still has a windows folder, a program files folder, and documents and settings folders. Any unix type system has /usr /bin /var /etc . These things are so apparently ingrained it appears you are incapable of perceiving them.

Those operating systems do separate user and system files with different permissions. Some even default to putting user files on a separate partition.

> as for your third point, this is what is called the fallacy of the false dichotomy or false dilemma. The solution for this is that there's more than just the 2 options you are imagining.

Please enlighten me.

This seems to be quite a comprehensive collection of features yet to be found in iOS while still remaining well thought out. Adding some of these features surely would be silly, but as iOS reaches a higher level of maturity, it'll certainly be interesting to see what Apple comes up with.

Windows 8 Contracts-like inter-app communication would seem to be the greatest feature users would love without even realizing its existence. It's a shame Apple (with OS X as well) loves to keep sandboxed apps so isolated. Launching Safari to open a URL for a specific app the user may not own is quite unfortunate.

Almost all of these will never happen, since they are against Apple's philosophy. They've tried to simplify things (which makes sense for a small device), and get rid of old metaphors (files). All most of these things do is clutter things up for the average user.

I agree, I think this will also be the reason why iOS popularity will fade over time. Either they adapt and make their OS more powerful, or people will move to alternatives that let them do more quicker. Simplification was a good selling point but features will become important again as smartphones become the central window to computing .

An Exposé-style task switcher would be excellent, particularly on the iPad.

That would be nice. They could combine it with the iPad advanced gestures. Pinching your hand currently closes and app and does nothing on the home screen. How about making that zoom out to an exposé view?

Better inter-app communication a la intents on android would be great.

Yes - this is probably the one major thing that keeps me on Android. Easy sharing between apps.

It's poorly implemented on Android. I have 5 browsers installed and when in any particular app I might click a link and it will ask me which browser I want to use to open it!

It's pretty amazing that the things WebOS got right from the beginning - cards, synergy, and notifications - are still way better than what other phones are providing.

For iOS6 multi-tasking on the 5th generation iPhone, if the rumors of a ~170 pixel taller display are true, I would like to see a persistent dock mode when you activate the multi-tasking switcher. So basically you double-home-tap and the app resizes down ~170 pixels and the dock appears. The dock stays on the bottom of the screen as you switch between applications and use them. When you're done with your little flurry of heavy multi-tasking you double-home-tap to hide the dock again. This should also work nicely on an iPad sized display. For the ways I multi-task on iOS this would be almost a perfect system. Most of the time I'm jumping into another app for a very brief stay -- just long enough to copy something, reference something, or act on an event, then I'm returning to whatever I was doing. On the iPhone this presently requires a ridiculous number of home button taps. On the iPad using the multi-touch gestures require a lot of swiping. The Mission Control style switching this article suggests would be OK but I feel like it would still require a lot of extra taps and swipes.

I really don't think Apple is going to change the screen size of the iPhone. They have their designs down to a science.

http://dcurt.is/2011/10/03/3-point-5-inches/

This flies in the face of the extremely believable leaked photographs of the last week.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/29/3049874/new-iphone-backpla...

Not to mention that that post assumes that everyone on the planet as identically sized hands.

No, the post just has to assume the AVERAGE hand size. Including smaller height people (e.g asians), and women's hands.

You really think Apple should make a larger display because an insignificant minority has larger hands?

"He's holding it wrong."

I don't have particularly large hands, yet have no issue with 4.3" screens. I wouldn't go back to anything smaller—the larger text (or ability to fit more text/contents of the same physical size) is worth the occasional thumb stretching (not that I have a lot of reason to ever reach to one of the top corners on my screen, anyway).

As a vision researcher, I think that size should be measured in degrees of visual angle, not inches. In this respect, there's no difference between a large screen and a small screen with the same number of pixels, and it's easier to hold your phone closer to your face than to sprout larger thumbs and buy new pants.

If there's a restriction of the iPhone's small screen, I think it's actually that you can't have as many touch targets as you could with a larger screen.

That's certainly true as far as perceived size goes, but I don't find it practical at all. There's a big usability difference between, say, reading while holding my phone at arm's length while resting my arm on a table and having to hold a smaller phone closer to my face to get the perceived font size to be the same. Holding stuff closer to your face just isn't as pleasant.

I'm not a fan of huge displays but 4" is actually pretty tame by today's standards. Apple may have come up with the perfect screen size for a SmartPhone circa 2007 but today the vast majority of SmartPhones sold in the world have larger displays so clearly 3.5" cannot be the only perfect size. I do think they have stood by 3.5" in part to see if this trend was just a temporary divergence. Now that is has endured for a couple years it's hard to ignore.

The other factor here is I think as Apple has scaled iOS to include more features they have begun to hit the wall of physical UI space. Let's use Safari as an example. If Apple wanted to add 2 new major features to Safari that had to be quickly accessible where would they even put them? The UI is just about full. They would have to increasingly rely on pop-out controls and other less-than-obvious UI tricks which adds extra taps. The situation is even worse when the keyboard is active taking up half the screen. With the status bar and maybe a visible app toolbar you have about a quarter of the screen available. Reading text messages on an iPhone has actually become painful. You can rarely see the entire message without scrolling or hiding the keyboard. A taller screen fixes that. They may just really need an extra ~170 pixels of height to keep scaling these apps with new features that require UI space.

> 4" tame by today's standards... perfect for 2007 but today...

How the average human thumb grew 0.5" between 2007 and 2012, making today's 4" screens better than 3.5" screens of 2007, is one of nature's mysteries.

Tim Cook basically hinted in a recent interview that the screen size would not be changing: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apples-tim-cook-rules-out-ipho...

The quote Tim Cook: --------------------------

"We have one App Store. We have one phone with one screen size, one resolution. So it’s pretty simple if you’re a developer.”

--------------------------

Interesting! I regard this as a pretty strong hint.

I think they could make a 4 inch display and just keep the current resolution and aspect ratio. It is high enough. Who cares if it is 326 or only 299 dpi? But of course I don't think Apple works that way and they won't make something so highly advertised like the Retina display "worse".

While we're playing the speculation game...

The ability to arrange home screens in shapes other than grids

The Windows 8 Consumer Preview has shown me that the merits of arranging app icons in shapes are numerous. It's easier to find things.

Likelihood: Low

Sync galleries between devices via iCloud

I love the Photo Stream. Photos I take on my phone show up on my iPad and I can select the good ones to make galleries from... fantastic! Only downside is those galleries don't sync back to my phone, so when I want to show a friend on my phone the sweet gallery of photos from Friday night's party I can't.

Likelihood: Medium

Sync notifications between devices via iCloud

If I look at twitter on my phone, when I look at my tablet four hours later the same @mention notifications shouldn't be waiting for me. Ditto to every other app I use on both devices.

Likelihood: Medium-low

Gratis turn-by-turn navigation

Android does it, Nokia Windows Phones do it. iPhone should do it. Perhaps I'm just a cheapskate or perhaps navigation has been devalued so much by Google Maps' ubiquity but I don't want to pay for an app in the app store to do this. Apple bought a mapping company a while back - let's see something happen with it!

Likelihood: ????

Apple actually bought three mapping companies :)

I see why someone with 250+ unread mails would also care about information density. I cringed all the way through the article, it screams information addiction throughout.

Not everything that a device can possibly display (or scream in the form of a notification) should be crammed into the OS just because it's possible and thus still "missing". I'm considering a Jailbreak to turn off Notification Center and Spotlight and other stuff I don't use, but can't be disabled.

Simplifying iOS is a high-hanging fruit. Or outdoing Google at maps. Or outdoing Dropbox at cloud services. Or outdoing amazon at books. Or taking some of the painful burden off iTunes.app.

I feel like some of these suggestions would defeat Apple's minimality. Amalgamating Windows and Android's complex features with Apple would completely damage the benefits of iOS. Stripping things like personalization, information display and unnecessary configuration options is what makes Apple what it is. If you want/require Windows and Android's tech customizability, you wouldn't own an Apple device. If Apple implemented those features, it would be like Facebook reverting to MySpace's overabundance of ugly profiles and teenboppy usernames.

Apple is or at least under Jobs, was very clear about not adding function that would consequently disrupt form or usability. Many of the features listed as suggestions for the iOS are present in other OSs. It's these 'features' that motivated me to move back to the iPhone.

Here is an example: The current rumor is Apple will introduce a larger (~170 px taller) screen. With larger screens (or taller) when you are using one hand (which most seem to want to do), as you reach your thumb to the far side of the screen your thumb muscle makes contact with the touch surface, causing inadvertent input. One-handed operation with newer devices such as the GS2 are very difficult. Also the sheer size of some of these newer "handhelds" is a bit too big for my hand (which is average to large size) requiring me to use two hands. It's little details like this that the OP and iPhone competitors seem to miss. Does the screen need to be bigger, and at what cost? If the cost is usability or adding clutter to the UI, then it will likely not make it in to the iPhone 5.

Mobile devices are good for somethings but are not meant to replace full computers.

My biggest beef is a low hanging fruit issue.

I can't get any reliable voice dialing recognition (I'm using Voice Control but I haven't had any better luck with Siri on my wife's phone) - it would be nice if you could limit voice dialing to your favorite contacts as opposed to your entire address book.

You can add nicknames for your contacts which will be used by Siri.

I've never had Siri dial the wrong number when I have asked the device to call someone...

A computer. What you want is a more general computer. There's nothing wrong with that, just saying.

I would love to see a Swype-like keyboard. I'm surprised that Apple didn't acquire Swype. The user experience is fluid and iOS-like. Apple could use Swype's patents to keep the keyboard as a unique selling point for iOS.

This very much. iOS users are regularly amazed after seeing the ease of typing with Swype, and are disappointed it is not possible on a regular iPhone/iPad.

I believe Apple didn't acquire anything from Swype because Nuance got there first.

What I want, and what would convince me to not jailbreak, is quick reply. The iPhone is powerful enough to handle the extra processing and it makes life a whole lot easier.

What is that?

Reply to texts, etc without switching away from the current app.

I agree. I used BiteSMS for a while when my phone was jailbroken and it works very well and is incredibly convenient. I wish Apple would include this functionality in iOS 6.

but the features pointed out in this article have not attained widespread use, and who knows - maybe there's a reason for that. Windows phone has a negligibly small market share. WebOS died. Blackberry 10 is not even out yet. And apparently the newest Android OS is also on very few phones.http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/6/2/3058522/android-4-0-now-...

The features that iOS has allowed are in widespread use once they are implemented. This is just an observation but perhaps there's a reason Apple prefers a controlled roll out of new features.

It is good to see an unbiased article admitting that iOS can learn from other platforms.

Major flaw on all platforms: switching apps is cumbersome and slow

We need ALT TAB on phones

Blackberry Pearl 8130. OS 4.5.

Right side convenience key assignment? "Application switcher".

Works exactly like desktop Alt-Tab.

Not that this one random four year old example proves you wrong. It's just the experience I can share. (Here's a screenshot that I found from elsewhere: http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd504/Kirkx1/utf-8BU25hc... )

Works fairly well on Android in Ice Cream Sandwich I feel. You click the dedicated button and just tap your app's thumbnail from the list. Two taps with maybe some sliding if you have a lot of apps open and want to go to one you weren't using recently seems nearly as simple as you could make it.

four finger swipe left and right not good enough?

google "swipe nokia n9"

+1000 for direct file access. Apart from this, I personally find iOS to be an almost perfect platform. But this single omission IMHO cripples it immensely - especially for content creation tasks.

You will never get that from Apple. What's more, you will lose that in OSes from others. Why? Because file system is not a solution, it's a problem. "Normal people" don't think in terms of file system, they think about their documents, spreadsheets, photos and movies. Cooper and others wrote about that years ago.

Can anyone think of cases where some blog post has been listened to by Google/Microsoft/Apple about what they, apparently, should do?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com