Google is aiming Chrome OS right at the bottom of the market. That is to say, cheap computers, netbooks. Apple, of course, takes the opposite approach, targeting the high end of the market with their high-quality and high-margin machines. If Google is successful with its Chrome OS netbooks (let’s call them ChromeBooks), what we could see is the squeezing of Microsoft, an idea I first laid out a month ago. With attacks from the top and bottom, Windows will be relegated to the middle. And ultimately, if Google has its way, marginalized.

There are a number of problems with being in the middle. First and foremost, the middle is average, boring, bland, etc. There’s nothing particularly wrong with that, unless you’re a company like Microsoft with an image problem. After years of taking hits, Microsoft is trying to revamp its image with expensive ads, new stores, and a new OS, among other things. But the middle is hard to sell. It’s neither the cheapest nor the best. It’s the thing people have to settle on.

Microsoft, of course, is also in the netbook space with Windows XP and now Windows 7. But after being a sector on fire for much of the year, signs point to a slowdown in sales. While you might think that would be bad news for both Microsoft and Google, Google’s ChromeBooks are really a new category altogether. As Google said during its event, they’re working with specific hardware manufacturers to make machines set to a certain standard. This means that they’ll have larger keyboards and trackpads than most netbooks, among other things. In other words, they’ll be better, from a hardware perspective, than most netbooks.

And they potentially serve a different purpose. A couple days ago, Daring Fireball wondered if the real key for Chrome OS (and netbooks) may be to serve as your secondary computer. But there’s really no need to wonder, Google’s VP of Product Management, Sundar Pichai, said as much during the Q&A session. “This will be a secondary device. It may be a primary device in terms of time spent on it, but we expect people to have other computers too,” he said when asked about more powerful editing software not being able to run on Chrome OS.

People aren’t buying $300 computers with the expectation of running Photoshop (which costs $700) on them. They are buying them mainly to get an extremely portable machine that can surf the web. Google’s promise with Chrome OS is the fastest way to do that.

And that’s what a lot of critics are missing (but we’ve been saying since July). Google isn’t trying to compete with a standard OS, they’re trying to help users realize that for the majority of computing they do, they don’t need one in the first place. Maybe you have a desktop computer at home for those few tasks that need dedicated native applications, and maybe that runs Windows or maybe that runs OS X. But maybe the machine that you use most of the time is your cheap, fast ChromeBook.

Though they get criticized a lot for not making a netbook, Apple also competes in this highly mobile space — their “netbook” is the iPhone. While unlike Chrome OS, the iPhone can run native applications, it speaks to a similar point: Increasingly, for most of your computing, you don’t need Windows.

The point is that consumer computing is shifting to a place where speed and mobility are paramount. The reason people are so excited about products like the CrunchPad and Apple’s tablet isn’t because they can run Photoshop — they can’t — it’s because they offer an easy way to use the Internet. Same thing with the iPhone. Same thing with Android phones. And it will be the same thing with Chrome OS and the ChromeBooks.

The difference is that these ChromeBooks will be the first devices that actually look like the traditional computers we’re used to. They will look like they could be Windows machines, but they won’t be. That’s a powerful stereotype to break. And if Google breaks that at the bottom of the market, with Apple continuing to break it at the top of the market, Microsoft will begin to feel squeezed.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

This time, Apple is having to battle the news of Facebook’s all-star developer Joe Hewitt quitting the platform, more high profile app rejections, and the rise of Android as an increasingly viable alternative to the iPhone. Schiller has granted BusinessWeek’s Arik Hesseldahl what the publication says is his first “wide-ranging interview on the matter”. Unfortunately, Schiller doesn’t really say anything to quell the growing unrest in the developer community — instead, he’s offered some finely-tuned PR-speak that will placate the vast majority of iPhone users, who are only vaguely aware of the App Store controversies and just need a reminder that Apple is still one of the good guys. But it may only make developers angrier.

The article kicks off with quotes from Hewitt’s recent denunciation of the App Store’s approval process, which he says sets a “horrible precedent for other software platforms” (an assertion I wholeheartedly agree with). The article then transitions into Schiller’s response to the complaints that are frequently levied against the App Store.

None of Schiller’s defenses for the approval process are surprising: he says that Apple has built a store that people can trust, and that between the downloading, billing, and transfering to the phone “it all just works.” Schiller also points out the App Store’s ability to offer parental controls because screeners can categorize apps into different age ratings. Of course, he doesn’t mention that Apple also likes keeping control over the platform because it lets them block anything that could potentially compete with its own products.

As he’s done before, Schiller did admit to some of the App Store’s faults. Hesseldahl asked about the recent Rogue Amoeba debacle, which saw the popular Mac developer’s app rejected because it used some icons that Apple objected to for clearly ridiculous reasons apparently having to do with copyright. Schiller didn’t comment on that case in particular, but addressed some of Apple’s issues with copyright: “We need to delineate something that might confuse the customer and be an inappropriate use of a trademark from something that’s just referring to a product for the sake of compatibility… We’re trying to learn and expand the rules to make it fair for everyone”. The article then notes that Rogue Amoeba will be resubmitting its application with its original icons, presumably with the understanding that it will be approved.

But to developers who have been dealing with the frustrations of Apple’s platform for many months, none of this is particularly novel or encouraging. Schiller has previously stepped in to fix highly publicized App Store blunders, but nothing changes for the vast majority of developers. Likewise, Schiller has previously said that Apple is working on improving the App Store’s submission process, and while I honestly do think they’re making some improvements, their lack of transparency makes it nearly impossible to tell how much progress has been made. And the steady stream of App Store horror stories isn’t showing any signs of letting up.

Even worse, Schiller implies in the interview that developers actually like the approval process:

Most are approved and some are sent back to the developer. In about 90% of those cases, Apple requests technical fixes—usually for bugs in the software or because something doesn’t work as expected, Schiller says. Developers are generally glad to have this safety net because usually Apple’s review process finds problems they actually want to fix, he says.

This is a laughable statement. Developers may like the concept of having an external QA safety net that helps catch bugs, but not one that’s incredibly inconsistent and penalizes them with extended delays and notoriously bad communication.

Schiller’s interview highlights how badly Apple is underestimating the negative impact the App Store is having on its reputation in the developer community, as Paul Graham recently detailed. Apple may not care about losing a handful of developers to Android, but their shortsighted strategy of answering developer complaints with PR spin rather than transparency and action may hurt them in the long run.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

One caveat: it’s not built, authorized or in any way endorsed by Google.

Spotted by Stuart Dredge over at Mobile Entertainment, the unofficial Google Wave iPhone app seemingly slipped past Apple’s usually and notoriously rigorous quality assurance and trademark compliance team and made its way to the App Store (iTunes link – up to you to decide if this is something you want to pay for).

There, it is the top result for a search on ‘google wave’ right before Waveboard, another iPhone app for the company’s experimental collaboration and communication tool that wasn’t built by Google.

But at least the latter developer didn’t blatantly use its trademarked logo, company and product name.

The Google Wave iPhone app was in fact made by CLapps, a small developer of games for the iPhone and iPod Touch platform.

CLapps – or rather, its sole employee David Crampton – notes in the app’s description: “I have no connection with Google or Google Wave but just supply a means by which to use it on your iPhone”. Somehow, I think the search giant’s lawyers are still going to have some objections to the naming part.

Expect it to disappear from the Store and (maybe) come back under another name in 3, 2, …

PS: while Google hasn’t yet published an official Google Wave iPhone app, simply pointing your browser to wave.google.com works mighty fine.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

As the TechCrunch Network’s resident mobile guy, I was given the task of writing up a list of apps for each smartphone platform that you ought to buy as little e-stocking stuffers for your loved ones. It was to be my primary contribution to CrunchGear’s ultra-amazing Holiday Gift Guide; my festively themed magnum opus.

But there’s a problem with this idea: it can’t be done. It’s not because I’m lazy (which may be true), nor because I don’t have any apps to recommend (which most certainly is not). I can’t recommend apps for you to buy for others, because you can’t buy apps for others.

Read the rest of this post at Mobile Crunch >>

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

A new feature in Gmail Labs allows you to change your contacts’ circular chat status icons in Android logo status icons. But the key is that these icons only change for users who are currently online on their Android phones.

Google’s official stance on this is as follows:

These icons can help you decide whether to tailor your conversation to the type of device that your chat buddy is using. For example, when you know the guy on the other end is using his Android phone, you may decide to send shorter, more concise chat messages.

Of course, they don’t tailor these icons for any other type of phone, just Android. It seems if Google really wants to help with mobile chat experiences, they could also have BlackBerry icons, Pre icons, etc. I would bring up iPhone icons, but Apple would probably sue Google if they tried to use that — I wish I were kidding.

This is a fun little feature for Android users, and as I said, totally innocuous. But I do wonder what else Google has up its sleeve for cross promotion as they continue to move into new businesses. Remember, the Droid was already advertised on Google’s homepage, something they rarely do. And remember too what got Microsoft in trouble in the 90s: Bundling products with its dominant operating system.

Again, before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, this example clearly isn’t a big deal. But think forward a bit as the web becomes more and more of the dominant platform rather than the operating system. And Google controls that domain. And product creep is happening.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

We asked Google about it and here’s what they had to say, “As I’m sure you know, we generally don’t comment about timelines for releasing specific features or products. But we’ve been quoted a few times saying Chrome for mac should be out by the end of the year.” I was then pointed to an Reuters article from September that quoted Google’s Product Management Vice President, Sundar Pichai, as saying that Chrome for Mac would be released by year’s end.

So it would appear that everything is still definitely on track or Google would have simply given me a “no comment.” But you’ll notice Pichai didn’t originally specify that this would be a beta version, so I asked if it was safe to assume that it will be a beta version and not a final, stable release that will be out. “Yep, that would be a safe assumption. Kind of the same model as the Windows version — launch it in beta first then take it out of beta (upgrade to the stable channel) when it’s ready,” a Google spokesperson wrote to us in an email.

So basically, yes, a beta version of Chrome for Mac will be coming in a matter of weeks. It will drop sometime in December.

This is great news considering that after continually improving the Chromium (the open source browser behind Chrome) builds for months now, there has seemed to be some setbacks recently in terms of both performance and wonky UI elements. The situation got so bad that I stopped using the daily builds of Chromium and switched over to the actual Chrome for Mac dev version. This version has been impressively stable for a few weeks now, and it auto-updates when a new stable build is ready.

If you’re not using it yet, you should check it out. Seeing as it’s pretty much the middle of November already, it’s likely very close to what the beta build will be. The only major element that does not appear to be working right now is the bookmark manager. But when you first install Chrome, it should ask you to import your bookmarks from Safari or Firefox, and this works fine. The build numbers for Chromium and the Chrome dev builds are not far off either.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

In July of last year, I wrote about The New Apple Walled Garden. The post was about the irony of developers and advocates who were otherwise open standards and open source champions being absolutely pro-iPhone, a platform that is closed and proprietary in every sense. Since that post, the horror that was foreshadowed by some has been realized – rejected apps, rejected apps, rejected apps. We documented the troubles here at Techcrunch and the overall response was nothing more than long comment threads, complaints, and a few wise people changing their minds. The complaints to date are from some bloggers and a small number of application developers, incidents that Apple are able to write-off as being minor, as they have a dedicated fan base and growing market share to fall back on. That was, until yesterday.

Yesterday, a high-profile iPhone developer became fed up with the nature of the platform and decided it was time to call it quits. Joe Hewitt of Facebook not only pronounced that it was time for him to move onto ‘other projects’, but had the courage to state that his reason was because of the closed nature of the iPhone platform and his frustration with the approval process. Joe is not just the guy who wrote the Facebook application, within 12 hours of the first iPhone launching he released a library for app developers to create iPhone-like applications. This was back in the first generation, when iPhone ‘applications’ were nothing more than websites. Without any documentation from Apple, and with sheer enthusiasm for the new-born platform, Joe created a library for other developers that would help them build applications that would mimic native iPhone applications built by Apple.

As somebody who downloaded the very early releases of Joe’s library, I could immediately see that most, if not all, of the first iPhone applications were built on, or at least inspired by, the iUI library he released. The credibility that Joe has and the work that he did not only inspired developers, but it gave them an easy path to developing the first generation of software for the iPhone. With the statements that Joe made yesterday, Apple has not only lost another developer that it can write-off, but has lost somebody who was an early adopter of their platform and an impetus for others.

Most iPhone and Apple fans would retort that “Apple make great products, and it is winning in a market where the consumer has free choice”. I agree that they make great products, I am writing this post on a Macbook. I was beside myself with excitement when I found out about Rhapsody, about OS X, about the new Mach kernel, about FreeBSD code being used for userland (my code is in there, somewhere). I was so enthusiastic about the second coming of Jobs that I had an email exchange with him about incorporating OpenSSL, amongst other things, when the early dev previews were out. I was totally sold, because an operating system was being built and released that combined the best of UNIX with the best of great interfaces. Finally, the open source on desktops conundrum had been solved, I cheered. The biggest non-Microsoft company had adopted what we knew was good, as a way to compete against the standard. It validated my belief in the BSD license, and I was completely spellbound and a fan (although not in the more recent fanboi sense).

It was not until the iPhone was released that I felt let down. I felt betrayed. I wanted to hack, and I wanted to do so standing on the shoulder of a giant who was gaining market, a giant who was my old friend. I hold a very strong belief in the open market, a concept which at a theoretical level is difficult to argue against. The iPhone took advantage of a market where the competition was completely clueless. It took an intelligent and smart outsider to recognize that. What has shaken my belief in the open market is that an otherwise good company can enter a market, show them how it is done – but do it in a bad way for the overall ecosystem, and at the same time win the support of people who would otherwise philosophically disagree with them, completely on the basis of that company being not-Microsoft and, well, being sexy.

I never believed that Microsoft were evil, first because as a user and developer I had a choice. Second, Microsoft gave me free tools to learn how to code. And last, despite the position Microsoft were in on the desktop they never asked me to send them my code so that they could test it against their black-box of what is ‘compliant’. Microsoft never sent me a letter to say that speech bubbles can not be used in my application. Microsoft platforms let me run whatever-the-hell voice provider I wanted. Microsoft, as far as I can recall, also never told me that I could not have a sense of humor (the ironic 1984 reference has already been done, thanks Jon). Developers today also have a choice with mobile applications, and the sooner more developers raise their blinkers and realize that the popularity of the iPhone is built on the applications they are building, the sooner we can either get rid of this mess and see Apple change, or see a new more open alternative thrive.

Hewitt’s statements, as a model iPhone developer from a large company, can be the tipping point. The only thing holding this back right now are Facebook themselves, who seem keen on preserving a business relationship and casting Hewitt off as a rogue. Facebook came out today, and in a more official capacity (ie. somebody with ‘communications’ in their title, as opposed to ‘developer’), said that “Facebook’s relationship with Apple and our commitment to the iPhone platform remain strong”, and that “There’s been a fair amount of confusion and speculation about Joe’s comments” (chuckle, chuckle) and that “Facebook has a great team of engineers taking over iPhone related development”. Joe is probably taking some heat from his employer right now, and he probably knew he would before he made any comment. Facebook could have simply shifted Joe to another project (Android, I hope), and many wouldn’t have noticed – but he stood up for what he believes in, and what many have been thinking, and he deserves the full support and credit from everybody who believes in transparency and free opinion, regardless of which side of the iPhone debate your opinions may reside.

If it comes down to Facebook vs iPhone, Facebook wins. If Apple hold to their position on being the gatekeeper for everything on their platform, we only win if the developers say no. An iPhone platform with applications only from Apple and no third-parties is no longer a viable platform, and no longer a device that consumers will purchase — because they are making decisions based on applications and access, not on the brand or suburb engraved on the back of it (I hope).

Facebook should recognize this and back Joe all the way. If they do, it will show that that interest of what they want to do takes precedence over what a handset manufacturer wants to do. Apple can squash small developers, but if a big developer were to set aside short-term business interest for a moment, they will win in the longer term. If only we could all do that and not be blinded, perhaps, well, the free market could work again.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

How right he is.

Facebook’s VP of Communications Elliot Schrage has just left us a comment on our post from yesterday explaining that while Hewitt may be moving on, Facebook “has a great team of engineers taking over iPhone related development.” May an entire team blossom, apparently.

Schrage left the comment because there has been much brouhaha over developer Joe Hewitt’s decision to stop working on the Facebook iPhone app because he’s fed up with Apple’s App Store policies. Schrage obviously wants to make it clear that Hewitt’s stance does not in any way signify how Facebook as a company feels towards Apple. We don’t really think our story yesterday implied that, but okay, noted.

Here’s the full comment that Schrage left on the post from yesterday:

This is Elliot Schrage, VP of Communications at Facebook. There’s been a fair amount of confusion and speculation about Joe’s comments and whether they reflect the official position of Facebook. They don’t. Facebook’s relationship with Apple and our commitment to the iPhone platform remain strong. IIn fact, though Joe himself will be moving to new projects, Facebook has a great team of engineers taking over iPhone related development. More generally, our work bringing Facebook Connect to the iPhone and with iTunes, iPhoto and other great products over the past year should illustrate our commitment to expanding our relationship with Apple and finding new ways to offer new services and features to the people who use both our products.

A beautifully crafted (minus the typo, of course) piece of PR work there. Are you reading this, Apple? Facebook is asking nicely not to be put in the penalty box.

Seriously though, while Facebook may not be on the same page as Hewitt with regard to the App Store policies, we are. As much as I think Apple generally makes great products, the App Store continues to be rife with hypocrisy and heartache. And it’s only going to get worse as it continues to grow. It’s good to see a developer of Hewitt’s caliber take the stance.

[photo: flickr/appsara]

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

I bring this up because today brought some very interesting numbers from the research firm, Strategy Analytics. According to them, Apple has surpassed Nokia as the most profitable phone maker in the world. I’ll throw some numbers at you in a second to show why this is really incredible, but the key takeaway is that this is why, at the end of the day, Apple wins.

While the press and rivals obsess over market share, Apple quietly comes in and makes an insane amount of money. It’s the same in the computer industry. Small market share, huge amount of money. The most important thing for all of these are companies is the bottom line. Apple wins that battle.

According to the report, Apple made $1.6 billion in operating profit off of the iPhone in Q3. Nokia, meanwhile, made $1.1 billion. Let’s put this in perspective. Recent numbers suggest Nokia controls roughly 35% of the worldwide handset market. Apple? About 2.5%.

Not 25%. Two point five percent.

Since the launch of the iPhone in 2007, just about everyone has been clamoring for more variety in Apple’s offering. People wanted iPhone minis, they wanted CDMA iPhones, etc. But Apple stuck to its guns and has basically sold one phone, which it could manufacture efficiently, when rivals like Nokia are busy peddling dozens. Sure, there are a few variations on the iPhone (included memory, and now the 3G/3GS), but basically, it’s one phone that is pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars of more profit than the market leader.

To people who follow Apple closely, this should be absolutely no surprise. It’s the same thing it does in the computer industry. Despite having a much smaller market share than its rivals, it makes more money than most of them. The key, of course, is that Apple maintains its high profit margins, while the competitors shuffle to battle each other for market share.

That’s not to say that Apple doesn’t care about market share for either its computers or the iPhone, it undoubtedly does. But it’s a secondary goal to running a successful business. A business which is now absolutely thriving in an awful worldwide economic environment.

If Apple wanted to boost its computer market share, it could do so in a heartbeat simply by slashing into its margins and chopping hundreds of dollars off its machines. That’s why those “I’m A PC” shopping commercials this summer were humorous. They’re attacking Apple for not competing in segments (low cost PCs) that it has absolutely no desire to compete in. Would those commercials be effective if Apple chose to sell a $500 MacBook? No, because Lauren probably would have bought it (remember, her first stop was the Apple store).

Most consumers obviously shouldn’t like the idea that a company is purposely charging more for its product to keep its margins high. But Apple has a winning proposition for that because it builds machines of such high quality that to many users it seems like they should cost more than they actually do. Or as Apple COO Tim Cook put it in a earnings call over the summer, “Our goal is not to build the most computers. It’s to build the best.” When you do that, apparently you can keep your margins high and in turn, make insane profits.

The iPhone is a bit different because Apple has a partner that it has convinced to pay it an insane amount of money for each device sold and then subsidize the cost of it for consumers. Remember that when the iPhone first came out it was $600. That’s the price Apple clearly felt comfortable setting for it to maintain what it thought was a good margin.

That price, of course, was ridiculous (though, admittedly, myself and plenty of others paid it). A few months later, Apple realized this too, and slashed a couple hundred dollars off the price, thus slashing it margins. But then they figured out a better way. Previously, they had been getting a cut of every monthly AT&T iPhone contract. But with the iPhone 3G, Apple decided to give all that money to AT&T in exchange for one upfront payment, and the promise that AT&T would subsidize the cost of the phone down to $199 (and $299). Jackpot.

So basically, Apple is now making a huge margin on every iPhone sold, while AT&T more or less picks up the tab. (Don’t feel too bad for them, they still make plenty on those monthly contracts.) Now you see why Apple doesn’t mind that exclusive agreement even while us consumers bitch to no end? There are 1.6 billion reasons why they like that deal (okay, probably some smaller percentage of that, but still).

And because Apple makes all of this money, they have money to pour into making that next great product. A product that will likely be high quality — and sell with a high margin. Hopefully some of that $34 billion in cash (with no debt) is being poured into finalizing the tablet as we speak.

This influx of profit also allows Apple to take the plunge into new markets, like it did with the iPhone. Earlier today, blogger John Gruber recalled what former Palm CEO Ed Colligan said when he heard that computers makers like Apple could enter the phone market:

“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” he said. “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”

Not only did they walk in, they walked in, changed the landscape, and have what now appears to be the best business model industry-wide.

Just as with the computer industry, while all its rivals were busy jockeying for market share, Apple secured the high ground and figured out the best way to bathe in profits.

[images: Touchstone Pictures and flickr/jaci xiii]

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Google tonight announced that it was drastically slashing prices while at the same time offering more storage pricing options for users of its services. Specifically, while Gmail users currently get about 7 gigabytes for free and Picasa users get about 1 gigabyte for free, both can now upgrade to 20 GB for just $5 a year. Previously, it cost $20 to get just 10 GB of additional service.

But what’s really pretty incredible is that Google has an option for you to buy up to 16 terabytes, yes, terabytes, of storage from them. As Google notes, that enough to store 8 million very high resolution photos. Considering that most consumers probably still have south of 500 gigabytes of storage in their home, that’s pretty massive.

Of course, you’ll pay for it: 16 TB will set you back $4,096 a year. But if you do something that requires you to store 16 TB of photos, you can probably afford that. And there are varying storage levels at different price points leading up to that. 8 TB is $2,048 a year, 4 TB is $1,024, and so forth.

These all represent significant price decreases from Google’s previous offerings, but it still would be cheaper to buy your own external drives. So why not do that? Well, Google offers the same levels of backup security that it ensures on all of its data currently. Plus, you won’t have to have dozens of drives sitting around. And since the data is all in the cloud, you’d be able to access it from anywhere, which Google highlights in its post.

But there’s something key to remember: Google is only officially offering this storage for use with Gmail and Picasa. It’s not a complete online backup/storage system, which is what Google Drive (or Gdrive) has long been rumored to be. Of course, there are programs and workarounds that will more or less let you use it for that purpose, but Google is not yet sanctioning the use of its storage as your official cloud drive.

Under Google’s system, 1 TB of storage will cost $256 a year and 400 GB is $100 a year. I don’t know about you, but if Apple offered something similar that would let me backup all my iTunes music and movies and allowed me to access them from anywhere, I would do it.

[photo: flickr/vsz]

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Now, to be clear, as we previewed last month, the upcoming version of Tweetie, 2.1, will also support Twitter’s new geolocation feature. But the new version of Birdfeed, 1.2, does it in a way that highlights it much more. And in fact, when Twitter geolocation support finally does roll out (it’s due very soon, we hear), Birdfeed has a good shot to be the go-to app for it at launch.

So what’s so good about it? Well, unlike Tweetie 2.1, which forces you to click into a menu system to get at the geolocation feature, Birdfeed puts it front and center at the top of every tweet composition screen. If you opt-in to using the feature (and it’s important to note that Twitter geolocation is opt-in), you can choose to either tweet with your location sent out each time, or use it on a tweet-by-tweet basis. If you choose the latter, you’ll see a bar along the top that reads, “Add a location to this tweet”. Clicking on that with start a “Determining location” function, and in a few seconds, you’ll have your location pinned to the top of that tweet under which you’ll write the actual tweet. Simple.

Currently, there isn’t any granular support to pick and choose how much or little detail of your location to show (what city you’re in versus what block you’re on, for example), but I suspect that may be something coming from Twitter’s end once geolocation launches.

On tweets sent out with this geolocation data, you’ll see a hyperlinked location beneath the timestamp on the tweet’s landing page. Oddly, there is no obvious way to tell which tweets are geotagged and which are not from the main stream, currently. If you click on this location on the tweet screen, you’ll be taken to that location on a map and show a marker with that Twitter user’s name and their tweet on top of a Google Map.

Birdfeed 1.2 was submitted to the App Store for approval 2 days ago, developer Buzz Andersen tells us. He remains committed to improving the application going forward, but notes that it has been slow going because he has other projects he’s currently working on as well. Still, Birdfeed is just as solid as it was several months ago and now with great geolocation implementation, could well see a spike in usage from the LBS lovers. Watch for it in the App Store sometime in the next couple of weeks.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

Urbanspoon has been one of the most popular apps for the iPhone since it launched alongside the App Store in the summer of 2008. By blending location data with a fun, accelerometer-based way of finding good nearby restaurants, it even caught Apple’s eye, which soon began featuring it in its television commercials, fueling its success. And that success led to IAC eventually purchasing the self-funded startup in April of this year for a price in the seven-figure range.

But Urbanspoon didn’t stop thinking about what to do next, and the first stop is the BlackBerry. It just made sense since there’s a good overlap between the type of people who use BlackBerrys and the type who use Urbanspoon, co-founder Ethan Lowry tells us. So the company teamed up with Xtreme Labs, a popular development shop, to create the app.

Like its iPhone brethren, the app features the familiar slot machine-style interface to allow you to tailor your restaurant searches. For devices like the Storm, which has an accelerometer, you can use the app by shaking it. For other BlackBerrys, you simply click a button to set the wheels rolling. “It’s one of the snazziest BlackBerry apps there is,” Lowry says.

The reason Urbanspoon outsourced part of the development of the app rather than do it all in-house like they did with the iPhone is because there are too many types of BlackBerrys that need different versions. For example, there are four different versions of the Urbanspoon BlackBerry app alone, we’re told. Despite it being acquired by a large company, Urbanspoon remains a small team, and they simply don’t have the resources to devote to all these different devices.

But the team is already thinking ahead. Lowry said there was some debate as to whether they should go with BlackBerry or Android first as their next target. He’s excited about Android now, as opposed to a year ago when things were still up in the air about the platform, and believes that it will definitely be their next target. Other platforms like Windows Mobile and webOS (which the Palm Pre runs) will have to wait. Though the team is also debating crowd-sourcing the creation of apps for other platforms to its users — an approach with other small teams like Foursquare are taking.

In terms of monetization of the app, it remains for now mostly a user grab. There will be limited monetization through ads and the like (which BlackBerry has a revenue share agreement for), but it will be minimal, Lowry says.

Go here to get the app, it will work on most of the newer BlackBerrys.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Apple has just added a range of HD movies available for purchase on iTunes. Here’s the kicker: There are actually some good movies, finally. Sure, previously you could grab a few gems like Casino Royale. But now, for example, a total of 9 James Bond films are in HD (though sadly, only two of the Connery ones are, and Goldfinger is not one of them).

So what else is available in HD now? Blockbusters like The Rock, Top Gun, The Sixth Sense, and Cloverfield. Award-winning movies like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, There Will Be Blood, The Queen, and No Country For Old Men. Pixar’s latest masterpiece Up is also available in HD. And you can also pre-order movies like Star Trek, which comes out next week, in HD.

It’s hard to tell exactly how much HD content Apple added today since you basically have to click on each film to see if it’s a) available in HD and b) available to buy in HD. But it’s a lot, and more importantly, as I said, there’s finally a fair amount of content worth purchasing.

Interestingly enough, Apple is touting its new HD movies as “HD Movies on your Mac or PC.” You notice something missing? Apple TV. Yes, Apple’s red-headed step child continues to get no marketing love despite the fact that HD movies not only play on the device, but I would argue that is still the best reason to get HD content from iTunes. Though movies are not Blu-ray HD quality, they’re pretty darn good and noticeably better than standard quality content from iTunes, especially on big HD TVs.

It’s good to see that after months of a slow trickle of mainly junk, Apple has opened the HD pipeline quite a bit more. Now if they could only get iTunes Extras along with HD for most films, the movie area of the store might actually be able to start living up to its music portion older brother. Having all movies available to rent the day they come out on DVD wouldn’t hurt either. But we all know Hollywood hates our freedom in that regard.

Of course, on the flip side, all this HD content to buy also means the more storage you’ll need for these files. HD movies on iTunes tend to range from 3 to 5 GB each. Apple still needs a solution for that eventual problem, like iTunes in the cloud.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Now that in-app purchasing for free apps has been live for a few weeks in the iTunes App Store, and Apple is now ranking the top-grossing apps, whether they start out as free or paid, we have some initial data on what kinds of apps are pulling in the most money from in-app purchases. (In-app purchases allow apps to offer a free version and then make money by requiring consumers to pay for additional features or content). Today, Distimo put out a report (download it here) which breaks down the top 40 grossing in-app purchasing titles by category (see chart below). Games, social networking, and book apps are doing the best job upselling consumers from free apps to paid enhancements. Music, news, and finance apps, not so much.

Games top the rankings of these best performing apps, with ngmoco’s Eliminate Pro (iTunes link) currently the No. 8 top-grossing app, validating ngmoco’s shift from a paid to freemium model. Mafia Wars (iTunes link) is another example. Seven of the top 40 grossing apps with in-app purchasing are games.

After games, social networking apps such as iRose (iTunes link), TweetPush (iTunes link), and Boxcar (iTunes link) are doing the best job convincing users to pay up after they download the free versions. Social networking apps take six of the top 40. Then comes books, with four of the top 40, including Comics (iTunes link)

It seems that apps which are addictive (like games) persistent (like social communications apps), or lengthy and easy to sample (like books) are doing the best with in-app purchases. It trickles down after that. There is one music app in the top performing apps—RJDJ (iTunes link), one news app, one finance app, and so on. People just don’t want to pay for songs, news, or stock quotes.

The Distimo report also compares the average price for the top 100 mobile apps in the iTunes App Store, the Android Market and the Blackberry App World. The Average price of an app in iTunes is the cheapest at $3.42, followed by Android at $4.30, and Blackberry Apps at $5.61. With more than 10 times as many apps as any of the other app stores, all that competition and proliferation of $0.99 apps probably explains why iTunes apps are the cheapest, even among the top 100. Also, Blackberry apps all have a minimum price of $2.99. Research in Motion just announced that developers will be able to include in-app transactions next year. It doesn’t appear that there is any official way to include in-app transactions in Android apps yet.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

FingerMgmt is a simple OS X app that allows you to track points of contact on multi-touch inputs. It was built with Apple MacBook trackpads in mind, but yes, it works with the Magic Mouse too. As you can see in the screen capture below, the Magic Mouse has no problem following up four points of contact relatively easily. It works for five too, but at that point, the surface area on the top of the mouse becomes the issue.

The newer, large MacBook trackpads meanwhile can easily distinguish up to 10 points of contact (after that, I ran out of fingers, obviously, as I’m not Count Rugen from The Princess Bride – “the six-fingered man”).

So while the Magic Mouse isn’t as versitile as the trackpads due to both the way they are used and surface area, it’s perfectly capable of doing some other interesting things with multi-touch. In the future, I suspect we’ll see Apple add two-finger click, and three-finger click options, as well as a pinch-to-zoom option. Maybe even a three-finger swipe if Apple is feeling really wild.

[via Daring Fireball]

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

The short answer is yes. This is hands-down the best mouse Apple has ever made. It’s not even close. That said, it could be even better, and hopefully down the road, with a software update, it will be.

Despite more or less starting the mouse trend, the past decade has seen some truly awful mice from Apple. Fans of the original iMac will remember the hockey-puck variety which was great if you had hooves for hands. Even worse that was for whatever reason Apple refused to add a second button to its mice, even though every other manufacturer was and most of those were clearly better products (this also makes Apple’s recent decision to add more buttons to its new remote a bit odd).

Apple finally relented, sort of, with its Mighty Mouse. Though it technically didn’t have two buttons, it did allow users to click on the right (or left) side of the mouse to simulate a second button. Too bad that mouse was one of the worst ever made. The scroll wheel on the thing was basically useless after a few months (and in some cases weeks) of use. It would attract so much grime that it had to be cleaned almost on a daily basis. The device also had side buttons that were so hard to click that they were basically pointless, and the Bluetooth version offered more ways to fail as it offered bad performance.

With the new Magic Mouse, Apple finally has taken a step in the right direction. The company has managed to make an elegant looking mouse (the entire top is just one smooth surface) that is also functional. Like the Mighty Mouse, despite having just one main clickable surface, you can still both right and left click, and it works well. Likewise, unlike the Bluetooth version of the Mighty Mouse, the Magic Mouse (which only comes in Bluetooth) seems very stable and responsive (though there are varying reports on this for certain types of machines).

Depending on your hand size, some people may not like the height of the Magic Mouse (it’s very low to the surface), but I find it to be quite nice, and better overall than the feel of the Mighty Mouse.

But the big selling point is its touch surface.

This is such a wonderful feature that you have to imagine it will soon find its way into most mice from various companies (Microsoft is already working on a bunch). With it, you no longer have to worry about mucking up a scroll ball, because the entire surface of the mouse is a scroll wheel of sorts if you simply move a finger up or down. It’s rather amazing how well the accelerated scrolling works. It’s better than most track balls.

The surface is also multi-touch. This means that if you swipe left or right with two fingers, you can go forwards or backwards on web pages you’re looking at. I’m finding that despite what Forbes said about it a couple weeks ago, it’s a great feature.

But.

As great as the Magic Mouse is, it has one absolutely perplexing problem: Why on Earth are they limiting the multi-touch functionality? First of all, there is absolutely one thing Mighty Mouse users will miss with the Magic Mouse: When you clicked on the scroll ball, it would allow you to do an action like Expose. With Magic Mouse, you can’t do that.

Obviously, there is no ball to click on now, but I cannot figure out why Apple wouldn’t utilize something like a two-finger click (possible with multi-touch) to do this. And why not have functionality for a three finger click too? And why not a three finger swipe? It’d be hard to fit perhaps, but why not four-finger too?

The possibilities are endless for what this mouse could do thanks to multi-touch, yet Apple is doing basically nothing with it. How about pinch-to-zoom? Nope.

I suspect we may see Apple remedy this will a software update eventually. After all, it has a history of doing that. The multi-touch trackpads on Apple’s MacBooks started out similarly crippled and have since added functionality. If you’re using a MacBook, the trackpad remains a much better input method than the Magic Mouse, simply because of the different multi-touch gestures.

There are a lot of other good mice out there (Logitech and Microsoft both seem to make good ones), and with the Magic Mouse, Apple has finally melded its desire for style with a mouse that offers a nice user experience. But it could be much better, and soon I hope it will be. Apple needs to keep its touch agenda moving forward.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Now it seems the TweetDeck iPhone app is MIA from Apple’s App Store completely, barring new users from installing the app on their phones and existing ones to upgrade to a new version.

Apparently, last Friday when the upgraded iPhone app was pushed, too many crash reports resulted in Apple TweetDeck pulling the tool from the store and start working on a bug-free version. An updated version was quickly resubmitted that same day, prompting TweetDeck community manager Richard Barley to tweet that he was going to try and push for a fast return of the (free) app on the store.

Update: more information here.

No such luck, however. A couple of hours ago at the time of this writing, Barley sent out another message saying that he was ’sorry’ and felt ‘frustrated’ because the updated app still hadn’t found its way back onto the App Store.

Of course, Curpertino isn’t exactly at fault here, since it’s the responsibility of TweetDeck’s (admittedly small) team to assure that submitted apps aren’t bug-ridden, which was apparently the case with the first update they had pushed last Friday.

But it goes to show exactly how much control Apple has over the whole process, forcing developers to sit and wait until they find time to review updated versions, with no ETA ever given.

According to Louis Gray, these are the features the new TweetDeck iPhone app will boast:

The new version reportedly added Facebook support, which had previously been limited to the desktop application, as well as video uploading, integrated with 12seconds.tv, a new Landscape compose mode, trending topics support, a “Nearby” option that showed when Twitter friends were close, thanks to the iPhone’s built-in GPS, and the option to open new links in Safari.

Also, here’s a video of the upgraded app, which will hopefully be reinstated by Apple soon:

(Hat tip to Austin Nunn)

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Well, not exactly.

Apparently, Apple contacted Someecards a couple days ago because of some new content in the app — Someecards pushes new cards into the app just as it does on its site. There was one in particular that Apple did not find amusing, and wanted clarification on: A card making fun of President Obama Halloween costumes. It’s fairly easy to see why Apple wanted some clarification, the card involves race. Here’s what it says: “Just double-checking that your Obama costume will involve a mask and not shoe polish.”

Fans of Someecards will know that they use these types of provocative jokes all the time. The intent, it would seem, is not to be racist, but to use a joke to make a statement about race. “It’s kind of hard to explain humor, but I basically said it was making fun of racist behavior,” Someecards co-founder Duncan Mitchell tells us that he told Apple.

It is hard to explain humor. You either get a joke, or you do not. Apple, it seems, does not. “They said that they thought we could both agree we should remove the card. I said that we probably wouldn’t both agree that we should remove the card, but that we would remove it if they said we had to,” Mitchell says. “They said we had to.”

Anyone who has ever talked to just about any spokesperson at Apple will immediately relate to what Mitchell is saying. If Apple contacts you about something, they’re really contacting you to make you do what they want. If you don’t, there is often the threat of repercussions of some sort. In Someecards case, it would have meant pulling the app from the App Store.

As I’ve said many times, the App Store is Apple’s store, they can choose to do what they want with it. The problem is that Apple is perplexingly hypocritical when it comes to what apps get rejected and what apps get accepted. For example, apps that feature interactive Asian upskirt shots are fine. So are apps called Asian Boobs which feature young Asian women wearing next to nothing in sexually provocative poses. Also apparently fine is Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler’s famous work.

For whatever reason, Apple has decided that anything having to do with making fun of public figures is prohibited. Though satire is protected in this country, it’s apparently not okay in Apple law. Apple literally has no sense of humor when it comes to that. But guess who does? Google.

In a seemingly coincidental bit of timing, Mitchell says that Google contacted him just hours after his call with Apple. They were calling to see if he’d be interested in making the app for Android. Their big selling points? “They pitched us on all the cool new phones that were coming out, and they also wanted to stress that they wouldn’t censor the app,” Mitchell tells us (emphasis mine).

Google, it seems, has a much better sense of humor than Apple. And they’re definitely playing their cards right in attempting to set up Android’s Market as a more open alternative to Apple’s App Store. With over 100,000 apps now, the App Store is a juggernaut that keeps on growing. But it would be a mistake to believe this growth will continue on in perpetuity no matter what. Apple should be careful about pissing off developers (which it has done plenty of times already) when an alternative like Android is finally gaining some momentum.

Regular readers will know that unlike a couple of my colleagues, I’m firmly an iPhone guy. Despite the advances that competitors are making, I still truly believe it is hands-down the best mobile device out there. But, as I hope you’d expect, I’m not above calling out Apple’s bullshit when I see it — as I do, very often, with regard to the App Store.

I simply believe they are making a mistake with the way they’re trying to contain this environment. At first, it made sense from Apple’s perspective because the company is all about controlling the user experience. But as the App Store continues to grow, the app approval model be harder and harder to maintain. What happens when we get to a million apps in the App Store? What about 5 million? Is Apple prepared to hire thousands of people simply to approve apps? The more they hire and the more apps that keep coming in, we’re going to continue seeing more and more screw-ups and hypocrisy. And developers are going to grow more and more frustrated. This situation is simply not tenable.

Lighten up on your heavy-handed rules, Apple. And just lighten up in general.

[photo: flickr/swami stream]

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Last week, Apple released its new 3.0 software for the Apple TV. Unfortunately, it looks like it came with a pretty big bug in tow: Disappearing content.

Here’s the problem in Apple’s words:

There is an issue with Apple TV software version 3.0 that can possibly cause your content to disappear after a period of time. All customers running Apple TV software version 3.0 should immediately restart their Apple TV and then upgrade to Apple TV software version 3.0.1.

Today, Apple has sent an email to all Apple TV owners advising them to immediately upgrade to the new 3.0.1 software to cure this issue. Obviously, you’ll want to do this as an Apple TV with no content is pretty much useless.

The new Apple TV 3.0 software has been generally well-received, though many feel it doesn’t go far enough to allow for content such as streaming web video. The UI has been improved, but it’s still hard to search for content without using an iPhone or iPod touch as the remote. The new Apple Remote works with the device, but it’s pretty much as useless as the white one in many ways.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

Let me remind everyone that Apple rejected a Someecards application last month partially due to the fact that one of the cards included was mocking Hitler (and more specifically, the film Inglourious Basterds). They flat out rejected it, didn’t require a certain rating for the satire, just rejected it. So when you see Mein Kampf in the store, complete with a swastika as its icon, you’ll forgive me if I’m a bit dumbfounded.

Not only that, the app is rated 9+. So apparently, 9 year-olds are good to go to read about the “Jewish plot” and other anti-Semitic bile. Also perfectly fine for the App Store are apps that focus on upskirt pictures, and Asian Boobs. But satire? Nope, that’s too hardcore.

This version of Mein Kampf is in Spanish, so maybe that’s what allowed it to slip by the App Store guardians. But that’s no excuse. If the Nazi logo didn’t raise a red flag, I’m not sure what will. The point is that Apple is so ridiculously hypocritical (or, at the very least, incompetent) with its selection process and it just keeps getting worse.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Today in San Francisco, AT&T held a Tech Showcase to show off some of the new innovations they are working on in their labs. One such thing I got a demo of was a way to use your iPhone to search television content simply by using your voice. While you may think something like this is less than ideal, it’s fast and very accurate. Watch below as the demonstration goes from simple to more complex. And, of course, a regular touch-based remote is included as well to select things.

By the way, none of this is actually happening on the iPhone or on your actual TV. Instead, your iPhone is connected to AT&T’s service where it does the voice filtering on its end — and it’s still this fast. This project isn’t quite ready for consumer use, but as you can tell, they’re not far off either. I would replace my cable box with something that has this in a second.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

That’s not to say it’s not a nice looking product — it is, but there have been some changes that make me confused as to what Apple exactly is trying to do with this thing. From a design perspective, it makes sense. The new remote now has the brushed aluminum and black button exterior that graces both Apple’s MacBook Pro line and the iMac line these days. The original Apple Remote was all white plastic (aside from the top sensor), that matched the older iMacs that it originally launched with.

Back in those days, the remote made more sense. First of all, it came with most new Macs. This, alongside Apple’s Front Row software, made it seem obvious that Apple was going to start taking media (beyond just music) very seriously across the Mac line (for a while it even came with Mac laptops). But today, the remote doesn’t come standard with any Apple product aside from the Apple TV (for obvious reasons). Instead, it’s a $19.00 add-on, even for the new huge 27-inch screen top-of-the-line iMacs (which seem like a natural fit to watch media on).

Also odd: while the original white remote had a magnetic back to allow it to easily stick to the side of the iMac, the new remote does not. That means this remote is yet another piece of clutter sitting on your desk if you opt to buy one. It would seem that Apple doesn’t really care about you using this remote anymore, even though without it, Front Row is basically useless. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to use it over simply using iTunes if you have to sit at your computer to do it anyway.

But the oddest thing about the new remote has to be that Apple has for some reason decided to move the Play/Pause button from the center of the navigational circle to the lower right side of the device, shifting the Menu button left to make room. That might make some sense as just a straight-up ergonomic design change, but the weirdest thing is that the center of the navigational circle is still a button, that does the same thing as the Play/Pause button.

Yes, Apple has added a new useless button. Again, Apple. The company that hates buttons.

Apple’s documentation for the new remote provides little insight, but they do label this new center button as “Select” rather than Play/Pause. But again, it does the exact same thing. Could there be some new funtionality for Front Row in the future that takes advantage of the Select button? Maybe. But even launching something like the new iTunes Extras content now being packaged with movies doesn’t seem like it would need its own button.

Here’s something else: Apple doesn’t even bother mentioning it on the main Remote page on its site, but this new remote does work with the Apple TV. Again, from a design perspective, this makes sense as the new remote looks much more like the Apple TV than the white one that currently comes with it. But again, the remote’s phantom button does nothing different from the Play/Pause button aside from the fact that holding down Play/Pause brings up movie chapters, while holding the phantom button does not seem to. Odd.

There is one definite advantage of the new remote: It’s much easier to change the battery. I have friends who have stacks of old dead white remotes simply because they didn’t even realize you could previously change the battery. So that’s nice, but does it really warrant the $19 price for a larger, heavier remote that no longer sticks to the iMac? Probably not.

If you want a good remote for iTunes and the Apple TV, just use your iPhone or iPod touch. Apple’s own Remote app makes it much, much more useful than either of the physical remotes. You can, for example, do a search by typing on the device’s keyboard rather than being forced to do a ridiculous amount of clicks to manually enter each letter on the Apple TV’s onscreen keyboard. It’s also much better for scrolling through a bunch of titles. Really, it’s better in every way imaginable. The only downside is that you have to own an iPhone or iPod touch. But if you own an Apple TV, chances are you probably own one of those as well.

I really don’t understand Apple’s thinking with these remotes. It would seem that they’re clearly inching towards products with less buttons and more touch elements, but this new remote is the opposite of that. There’s been a touch screen remote rumored for some time now, but this is what we got instead? What gives, Apple?

Update: A few things from some insightful commenters:

1) It’s also a bit odd that the new remote does not feature an Apple logo anywhere on it. The old one did on the back.

2) It’s true that aluminum is not a magnetic metal, but neither is plastic, which the old remote was.

3) I had forgotten about this, but the old Apple Remote is very similar to the original iPod Shuffle. It’s certainly possible that Apple was using the same manufacturing for both, and with that Shuffle long retired, it was easy to move to a new type of remote.

4) Apparently, the Play/Pause separate button also allows you to stop/start content when you’re not specifically in that section. That could very well be why Apple did this, but that is also not very intuitive since the buttons do the same things the rest of the time.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.