An Issue with Safari Touch

17 April 2010 // Filed under Apps + browsers + iPad + iPad Apps + iPhone

I’ve discovered something that I truly miss about using my laptop v using our new iPad for general web browsing. I miss it badly, and hopefully either Apple will provide a way, or allow a 3rd party to provide a way to rectify my problem.

I preordered 2 iPads. One for my wife, a 32 gig Wi-Fi-only version, and one for me, the top of the line 64 gig with 3G. Though mine has yet to even ship, I’ve already become accustomed to using the iPad for the majority of my general web browsing. It’s small, light, ergonomic, and is generally perfect for most any form of browsing short of heavy research requiring multiple sites to be open simultaneously. For that, Safari Touch for iPad just doesn’t have the juice. The way it handles new windows is maddening, and organization of open web pages must be done just one way. But that isn’t my primary complaint. No, my complaint is much more annoying for me as a user than anything else I’ve encountered in using both forms of Safari Touch: the lack of ability to block ads.

On my MacBook Pro I use Flock as my primary browser. I certainly don’t use all of its functionality. In fact, I only use a small portion of it. I use it for reading RSS feeds and their corresponding web pages, and I occasionally upload photos to Flickr, but one of the primary reasons I use it is because of its ability to use the very excellent AdBlock plugin. Even the browser I used before Flock, Camino, has its own built-in “Annoyance Blocking” feature which blocks not only your average web ads, but also comes with a built in Flash blocker so you can keep your browsing streamlined and, as they say, annoyance free. While Safari Touch takes care of the latter by not supporting Flash at all, there is no way to handle the former using Safari Touch. And that annoys the ever living shit out of me.

I see the vast majority of web ads to be the lowest form of advertising on earth. Nothing dehumanizes a reader of the inter-tubes more than that flashing banner at the top of the screen telling me that if only I can shoot the jumping monkey via the JavaScript crosshairs, I can win an iPhone. I despise all web ads, and seek to kill them on every site I peruse regularly. Now I fully understand that ads support a lot of the sites on the internet, and that by blocking them I am denying them the ability to make some money so that said sites might remain online, but, the way I look at it, until those ads can start to treat me with even a shred of dignity, I refuse to look at them. It’s plain and simple.

After looking for methods to rid myself of ads, I found Atomic Web, a fully functional browser which, like all other web browsers on the app store except Opera’s new browser, uses WebKit as its rendering engine meaning fast loading times and proper rendering of any and all standard CSS layouts. The ad blocking seems to work pretty well, though it does miss its fair share out of the box. Fortunately, one can easily add new rules to the ad blocking setting in Atomic Web so that it will catch ads. Really, it works in much the same way as most web blockers insofar as it has domains and web extensions that it simply will not load if they are listed. It’s fast, flexible and works. Best of all, it allows me to regain some of my humanity while browsing.

 ::  post comment  ::  2010-04-17  ::  Christopher Williams

iPad Musings

9 April 2010 // Filed under Apple + Apps + browsers + iPad + iPad Apps + iPhone

I’m sure by now there are atleast 40 or 50 thousand iPad reviews in one form or another ranging from quick one liners to a few very excellent full length, in depth looks at Apple’s new portable wonder that could.  I won’t say but a few passing impressions so fret not, but I do have some notes to enter in to the record which I haven’t seen elsewhere.

One thing that Apple is notable for is that if they don’t feel that they have a good implementation of a feature, they either won’t use it no matter how requested or obvious said feature might prove to be, or they have a less-than-ideal implementation which is little more than a place holder for the real deal such as when they suggested that web apps for the iPhone was a really great idea when the iPhone launched, only to open the App store the following year.   At 11:33 in his Keynote announcement concerning the upcoming iPhone OS 4.0, Steve Jobs notes,

We weren’t the first to this party, but we’re gonna be the best. Just like copy and paste. Other people had cut and paste, but everybody it’s widely believed that the way we did it, we just nailed it, with the way we did it and it’s much better than any other implementation.

Of course he’s talking specifically about the iPhone’s upcoming multitasking abilities, but generally speaking, he laid Apple’s design philosophy on the table for all to see.  If it’s necessary to the functioning of a device or application, Apple will make do with the “here it is, (sorry it sucks, even though we’ll say how insanely great it is)” until they can elegantly implement it into the design of the UI workflow.  If this missing feature is just window dressing, they’ll either act as if it doesn’t exist (as with copy and paste), or come up with a functional reason, even if bad, why they can’t implement such a feature (as per multi-tasking).  The new iWork Apps “export” feature I feel is likely the former, and I’d be willing to bet a new, better implementation is on the way. Hopefully sooner than later.  There is no way that Apple can be satisfied with the convoluted workflow they have settled on for transferring iWork documents to and from the iPad.  I’m not happy with it; there is no way Steve Jobs is.  I would bet that, as a way to compete fully with Android, a theory that Gruber of Daring Fireball mentions as the driving impetus to add multi-tasking to iPhone OS, Apple will soon design a seamless way to sync iWork documents on both platforms, Mac and iPad.  In his article, he writes,

Like copy-and-paste, it was inevitable that Apple would add multitasking to iPhone OS eventually. Whether it was always planned for this year I do not know, but once Android became Apple enemy number one, multitasking became a must-have catch-up feature. Adding it now takes away the first item on the Android-vs.-iPhone talking points list.

With iPhone’s seeming need to match Android feature for feature (if the feature is a “Duh! Why didn’t it come with it to begin with sort of feature”), better document syncing, whether through MobileMe, wireless syncing on a network or some other means, must follow suit, or people will simply abandon iWork as an alternative for iPad productivity in favor of a solution that works as Apple products should.  I’m reasonably sure that they will make a better solution.  I can only hope they don’t drag their feet on this issue.  Even if their secondary implementation it isn’t as seamless as GoogleDocs (say they go with a more traditional network sync), anything has to be better and more efficient than the shitty mess they have now.

My second gripe is about the iPad implementation of Mobile Safari, specifically the way in which it handles opening new windows.  Like many, I use Mobile Safari on my iPhone and iPad just like I would use a full browser on my MacBook.  As I read through an article, I open any interesting links I might want to peruse in another tab.  In my browser on my MacBook (Flock for anyone that cares), I have it set to NOT immediately move to the new tab, but to stay put.  I want to keep reading the current page, then move on to any peripheral readings when I’m done.  I can’t do that in Mobile Safari, and it pisses me off.  When I tap and hold on a link to have it open in another window, the focus automatically goes to this new window, and I have to manually go back to the parent page in order to keep reading.  When I’m looking at a page of RSS feeds, for instance, this becomes insanely frustrating as I have to go back to parent page multiple times in quick succession.  A simple setting is all I ask.  No changing anything that exists except the simple ability to make the decision about how new pages act up to me.

1 comment  ::  post comment  ::  2010-04-09  ::  Christopher Williams

Which Browser Next?

25 March 2010 // Filed under Applications + Mac + browsers

I have a dilemma in browsers right now.

Currently I use Flock, self titled as “The Social Web Browser” which is based off of Firefox.  In fact, it is Firefox, with some skin work and added functionality via Firefox’s open nature.  I genuinely really like Flock.  It is the single browser that seems to have RSS done right (for my purposes anyways), and has loads of other features that aren’t found anywhere else like Flickr integration, a media bar which is awesome, gmail integration, blog integration as well as other features too numerous to post.  In short, I don’t really want to get rid of it.

But it has one essential problem that I’m finding difficult to live with, and will likely only find it more difficult as time passes.  As a Firebox based browser, it only has support for Ogg Theora video under HTML5, and that, due to a lack of sites seemingly interested in using Ogg Theora as their format of choice for serving HTML5 video, is annoying.  In short, Ogg Theora-only compatibility is seemingly code for “must continue to use Flash” until Mozilla, the organization responsible for developing Firefox, decides that actually using a very useful feature is more important than open source philosophy.  In one of his many arguments concerning HTML5 video and the eagerly anticipated doom of Flash video being synonymous with video on the web, John Gruber of Daring Fireball writes,

The practical effect of Mozilla’s current position will not be to drive adoption of Ogg Theora. What’s going to happen is that Safari, Chrome, and even IE9 users will be served HTML5 video, and Firefox users will get Flash. Publishers will support both HTML5 video (for Safari, Chrome, and IE9 users) alongside Flash (for browsers that don’t support HTML5 and H.264) because they already have the Flash video publishing infrastructure in place, and because Flash can be used to publish H.264-encoded video. Publishers don’t have to encode (and store) video twice; they can encode (and store) it once and serve it two different ways. The sites that are the most popular — YouTube being number one, obviously — would bear the most expense to support an additional encoding format. It isn’t going to happen.

So, even those using the latest version of Firefox will be treated like they’re using a legacy browser. Mozilla’s intransigence in the name of “openness” will result in Firefox users being served video using the closed Flash Player plugin, and behind the scenes the video is likely to be encoded using H.264 anyway.

I, like much of the Mac using world, am tired of Flash being ubiquitous with web video.  It’s a resource hog and causes crashes easily more frequently than anything else on my system.  In fact, it’s about the only thing that will cause Flock to crash.

So I could make a move to Safari or Chrome which does support the far more frequently used h.264 video format for viewing HTML5 video and ditch Flash whenever HTML5 video is being served (which is far more frequently than even just a few months ago), and lose all of the wonderful functionality that I use daily on Flock, or stand pat with the hopes that Mozilla will soon catch on that the choice for Firefox users will soon either be h.264 video served as-is through a h.264 compatible implementation of html5 video, or by using Flash.  Ogg Theora in HTML5 has been dead even before it got moving, especially now since 3 of the 4 major browsers that support HTML5 video (Safari, Firefox, Chrome and IE9) support h.264, while only Firefox and Chrome support Ogg Theora (and only Firefox supports only Ogg Theora).  For the very short term, I’m sticking with Flock.  I like the idea of allowing Flash to die in the pasture a painful death, but, being that HTML5 video has not yet caught on as mainstream with web developers, the loss of functionality by switching from Flock will be greater than the gain in stability of ditching Flash, and I still have hope that Mozilla will remove its head from its nether regions by the time HTML5 takes hold of video on the web.

So hurry up Mozilla.  If openess is your main goal, please see that insisting on Ogg Theora because it’s “open” is really only a means to force people to still use Flash, the most closed format of them all.

 ::  post comment  ::  2010-03-25  ::  Christopher Williams

GPS Woes with MobileNavigator

27 September 2009 // Filed under Apps + iPhone

So I decided months ago that a 12 hour round trip drive was a good idea in order to see my favorite band in concert, and had I not seen them 4 times previously, I would have been right.  Don’t get me wrong, I very much enjoyed the concert, as I always do, but 12 hours and about 1/4 mile short of 750 miles round trip (all in one day mind you – I drove there, saw the concert, and immediately hopped in the car for our return drive home) has taught me differently.  In short, it was a pretty bad idea, and, to get on with it, Navigon’s usually very excellent MobileNavigator, didn’t help.  Between off the cuff directions that made no sense and taking us straight through the heart of the Cleveland ghetto on our way out of town (read: after midnight), the iPhone application didn’t display its usual charming self that gets me where I need to go with no fuss.

I’ve always been skeptical of using turn-by-turn GPS navigation devices (iPhone or otherwise).  I generally don’t leave my area of the country, the Kentucky Bluegrass if you’re at all interested, which negates the need for using a GPS application at home (we’re not that big and finding something is never all that hard), and having one for those rare out of town trips via car seems sort of like buying that expensive international calling plan for your iPhone when you only leave the country for a couple of weeks a year.¹ But after having read a few reviews on the different iPhone GPS apps, I decided to give MobileNavigator a shot.  At $89.99 it is less expensive than a dedicated GPS unit, and one less piece of hardware to buy/keep/maintain.  I already have my iPhone in the car all of the time, and it would be nice to not get lost when we do go out of town.  The first few uses, mostly as test runs, went well.  In fact, I was pretty amazed at the accuracy of the app.  I might have chosen a different route on occasion, but I can’t blame the application for keeping me on main roads rather than some of the more rural routes in our area.  Either way it had always chosen a reasonably quick and efficient route to my destination, and directed me there without error.  Then I went to Cleveland.

Now, I don’t want to lead you to believe, my dear readers, that the application landed me in Chicago, in fact I didn’t even turn the application on until we were about 15 miles outside of Cleveland, but it did show some “irregularities” once we got into town.  As we were entering the outskirts of Cleveland we got a notification:

In .5 miles remain in the left lane and continue on I-71 North.

Got it.  Then just before we get to the interchange, another notification:

In 400 feet, turn left on ‘x’ street.

Uhhhh.  At 80 MPH (Yes, I do drive fast) turning left in 400 feet on an Interstate seems pretty dangerous (not to mention impossible because I-71, like most interstates I’ve travelled, don’t have any place at all where making a left turn is possible).  Okay, disregard that unfortunate error and keep going.  Then after a few more correct notifications which get us off of the interstate and to a stop light we get another:

In .2 miles turn right on to ‘y’ street.

We can see our destination on the display map and we’re psyched; not only are we about to see a great band perform live, but we’re close to the end of this 6 hour car ride (which took place right in the middle of some of the worst rain I’ve ever driven in).  And just as we start to move we get yet another notification:

Please make a U-turn as soon as possible, then an immediate right on ‘z’ street.

Again we decide to ignore the funky notification and just move on, which indeed was the correct decision.  Our destination was right around the corner, and the timing, as before, seemed wrong.  One never knows, though, because I did pay $90 for an application which specializes in telling users how to get where they want to go.  Add to that the fact that it had always been perfect in my previous use, and a situation is set up which can, at worst, get someone lost,² but in a worst case scenario could get someone hurt.

Fortunately if one uses just a little bit of sense when interpreting the directions spoken by the application it will still help with getting you to your destination, but there are cases during which even common sense can’t help all that much.

GPS units, and apparently GPS applications for the iPhone, are programmed to map the “best” route possible from your current position to your destination.  What “best” means in the context of real-time use sometimes gets confusing as to whether you’re taking the shortest route to your destination, or the fastest based on type of road and speed limits (of which MobileNavigator is keenly aware).  But one thing it does not take in to account is the context of those routes.  Sometimes the “best” route in terms of time and/or distance isn’t the Best route.  Though mostly populated by hard working people who simply want to live their lives in peace, “bad neighborhoods” are not called bad neighborhoods for no reason, and GPS software can sometimes put users in a bad position, particularly if you’re in an unfamiliar city where finding assistance or seeking help may not be an easy task.  I understand that it would be very difficult to designate such areas,³ but whenever the philosophical, sociological and political hurdles have been overcome, I welcome the technology which will keep me out of the ghetto in unfamiliar surroundings at 1.30 in the morning, yet still take me on a route that will get me where I want to go.

______________________________

1. During a recent trip to Brazil, every time my iPhone connected to the local Brazilian cell network, I received a text message from AT&T telling me that I should pony up and subscribe to a full-time international calling and data plan.

2. Having bad directions would only result in the program finding its error (or at least discovering that you had diverted from the planned route) and correcting it by re-routing your course to get back on track.

3. What constitutes a “bad neighborhood?” Where would we draw the lines?

 ::  post comment  ::  2009-09-27  ::  Christopher Williams

Notable iTunes 9 Additions

18 September 2009 // Filed under Applications + iTunes

With the release of iTunes 9, a few new features were unveiled, and a couple of them are great.  First and foremost is the new Home Sharing feature.  Long have I longed for a way to transport music to and from my home server with ease, and though I have developed a work flow consisting of Screen Sharing and and the venerable DropCopy which does admirably well, though is a bit clunky, Home Sharing makes it Drag-n-Drop easy.  Simply configure all of the computers on your home network through iTunes (Advanced > Turn On Home Sharing), fill in your iTunes account email and password, and start browsing other libraries on your network.  When you see any form of media on another computer that you want, drag-n-drop to your own library and voila, those items are copied across the network.  Brilliant.

For all of it’s functionality and overall handiness, however, it does have two noticeable drawbacks; one cannot move items from your library to another.  For instance, I often rip CDs on my laptop, then transfer them to my headless server; for that you will need to either sit at the other computer, or use some Applescript wizardry or screen sharing.  In short Home Sharing allows users to pull, but never push media.  Though I’m sure that it is a security precaution, and likely a very good one, I find myself lamenting that there is no option for pushing media via Home Sharing.  I would find that functionality immensely useful.

The other issue with Home Sharing is that the syncing feature only supports items purchased via iTunes.  Though any media file is drag-n-drop friendly from one library to another, only media which has been purchased via Apple’s store will automatically sync to other computers with Home Sharing enabled.  Were this feature enabled for any new media file added to iTunes, the feature would be killer.  Though I’m sure that the execution of automatic syncing is well thought and fairly seamless for users, it’s the thought process which lead the Apple engineers to implement automatic syncing as an iTunes Store-only feature that seems half-baked.  Not all of the over 200 million iTunes users worldwide can buy from the iTunes Store, and I’m sure that only a fraction of those who are able actually do which seems to limit a very cool idea to only a relative few without reason.  We’re not talking some fancy MobileMe functionality, but some pretty basic copying from one machine to another over a network. I know that Apple favors their content over my own, a fact which they have proven time and again, especially with prioritizing iTS content over the content I already own in the Apple TV menu hierarchy, but to completely disregard my already paid for content as something I might like to transfer without jumping through hoops seems more like a business decision than a design decision.

Another notable change in iTunes is the new left side browser.  The “old”, on top browser view which appears above the library content is still an option but the new default browser is on the left side of the library and spans the entire height of the library window.  While I found it a bit odd initially, I soon discovered that this left side view allowed for me to view more, more efficiently.

Though my library is not large in comparison to some, I have 183 artists and 474 albums (5329 songs), and having the left side browser allows me to view my content without the constant scrolling (which would be worse in mammoth libraries), while also not having to sacrifice the available viewing area of the content.  If I want to see more artists in the traditional on top browser, I encroach on the number of songs/videos I can view.  Because most of the content in iTunes consists of shorter names,¹ vertical viewing space is more efficient at displaying lots of content, so encroaching on the left margin a bit does not lessen the amount of content I can view. With the Album Artwork column closed, I can view 44 artists and 45 songs in the left-side view,² a drastic difference to the traditional browser where if I choose to view 45 artists, where I would see exactly zero songs.³

Where the left side browser encroaches on usability, however, is when users show lots of attributes for individual songs. In my library, I show the song name, time, artist (though it's redundant), and album which are not hindered at all by the new found horizontal space constraints because of their relatively short entries. That said, some users show all manner of file attributes including bit rate, rating, play count, release date or any of the 38 viewing options available to users. If one chooses to show a lot of the metadata, horizontal viewing space could become quickly used up, making the vertical browser less useful because of the need to scroll horizontally to see the information required.

A question:

Why make this fairly drastic UI change now, 9 versions after iTunes' release? Were the left side browser not the default view in iTunes 9, one might surmise that the Apple engineers who design the iTunes UI have just thought of it, which seems unlikely given the level of thought put in to UI design at Apple and the fact that iTunes is on version 9 (as opposed to version 2 or 3).  But the new left side browser is the default, and it seems so obviously superior to the on top browser that it makes me wonder why it took so long to implement.⁴ Given that Apple has not shipped a non-widescreen monitor for years, it seems hard to believe that the UI guys on the iTunes team hadn’t thought of a left side browser to take advantage of the ever shrinking vertical space on the screen by using as much horizontal space as possible in lieu of vertical.⁵ Afterall, iTunes has always had a version of a left side browser since its inception in the form of the library pane on the left side of the screen.  It has always been this way, yet only now have they seen it fit to finally match the UI of the browser to that of the rest of the program rather than being in stark contrast visually, and far less efficient in everyday use.

________________________________
1. While there are long album/song/artist names that may go out of view due to their length, most of this information is rarely more than a few words meaning that vertical space is far more valuable than horizontal space when perusing the content in an iTunes library.

2. The discrepancy is due to the “All (183 Artists)” taking up the very top slot in the Artist column of the vertical browser. This changes, however, as soon as I scroll down just 1 slot to once again show 45 Artists and 45 songs. This is all on a 15″ MacBook Pro. I’m sure that large cinema displays show even more, and that smaller MacBook screens show less.

3. This of course is not possible as iTunes will not allow a user to drag the horizontal browser to cover the entire available space; fully open, there are but 6 songs viewable, and 36 artists in the browser.

4. It would seem that the iTunes design team also views the vertical browser as superior, otherwise they would not have made it the default view in its premier.

5. According to MacTracker, the last non-widescreen display to be shipped by Apple, the 17″ Apple Studio Display, left the factory over 5 years ago in June 2004.

 ::  post comment  ::  2009-09-18  ::  Christopher Williams

iTunes 9 Bug Update

15 September 2009 // Filed under Applications + iTunes

Earlier this week I wrote about what I thought was a pretty serious bug in iTunes when downloading content from the iTunes Store.  I had noticed a download that I had been unsuccessfully trying to complete for at least two days, an update to Navigon’s MobileNavigator, mysteriously started anew when I unplugged my MacBook Pro from the power supply, and that the 1.439 GBs of app that I had already downloaded vanished as if it were never there at all.

As a followup, I tried to replicate this bug so that I might report it to Apple, but to no avail.  I’ve tried both starting the download with the power supply attached and unplugging when nearly finished, as well as starting the download sans the power supply, later plugging it in, then unplugging it again once nearly finished, but was unable to recreate the odd behavior of restarting the download.  I tried both methods multiple times.

Here’s to hoping that it was a one-time event and not a widespread problem.

 ::  post comment  ::  2009-09-15  ::  Christopher Williams

The iTunes LP Shortcoming

13 September 2009 // Filed under Applications + iTunes

An article by Jay Robinson analyzes the new iTunes LP format which, in part, seeks to revive full album sales by including various extra features which are reminiscent to the days of yore when people bought full LPs and cherished them because of the supplementary experience provided by the sleeve notes and vast amounts of images (those days are not dead yet, BTW – you can also get Porcupine Tree’s latest album on iTunes, or order the CD from Amazon).  These extras include artwork, detailed liner notes, videos as well as an array of other “stuff” that might make people interested in buying the album as a package rather than that one song they really like.  Robinson analyzes both the user experience with the new LP format, which he describes as well thought out and engaging for the most part, and takes an initial dive into the internals of the .ITLP package which consists of little more than a .plist file, some HTML and CSS files, and various media files.

The best news is that there isn’t a hint of Flash to be found, and the various animations, which are comprised of CSS3, are incredibly rich.

But Apple and the labels are seemingly missing the entire point with this new format.  Sure, the extras are a nice bonus to the music, but for those who are interested in buying a “Special Edition” of a particular album, 256k AAC is likely not going to be high enough fidelity.  I would have hoped for Apple Lossless which, at about ~60% of the size of an AIFF or WAV file, loses size, but not quality.  It is identical to what one would hear if listening to a CD.  If I’m intrigued enough in a band to want extra content to go along with a particular album (otherwise I could just buy the album at a reduced cost), that enthusiasm is drastically tempered by highly compressed AAC quality audio files.  In fact, any impulse to buy an iTunes LP is completely erased, regardless of how great the extra content may be.

Audio fidelity is the single reason why I don’t buy from digital media outlets any longer, and a few videos and liner notes aren’t going to change that.  I understand that most people generally can’t tell the difference between 256k AAC and any of the various lossless formats, myself included, but at times the differences are stark, especially when there is layering in the sound field – the field sounds fairly empty in comparison to a lossless compression scheme – or the production of the music tends towards higher frequencies (Lamb of God’s Sacrament is a great example where just about everyone for whom I have played both the iTunes version and an Apple Lossless version ripped from the CD immediately notices the “digital wash” in the high pitched cymbal work by Chris Adler – in short it sounds terrible).

If the iTunes LP experience is supposed to be about a rich media experience to supplement the mediocre quality of the music provided by iTunes for existing iTunes customers who have tended more towards single track purchases than full album purchases, I’m sure it will work wonderfully.  But if the point is to lure CD buying holdouts towards a digital medium, the low quality of the audio files will spoil their plans.

 ::  post comment  ::  2009-09-13  ::  Christopher Williams

Weird D/L Bug in iTunes 9

12 September 2009 // Filed under Apple + Applications + iTunes

I’ve just run into what I believe is a pretty serious bug in iTunes 9.  A bug which just about prompted me to throw my computer out the window.

I’ve been trying to download the newest version of MobileNavigator from the iTunes Store (trying being the operative word as I’ve been at it since it’s release).  It has a few features which take the turn-by-turn navigation app to the next level.¹ Because I live in what many people would call the sticks, I have to use an insanely slow and unreliable ISP with a max download speed of 1.5 Mbps. The newest version of MobileNavigator weighs in at 1.44 GB, and when also trying to download HD versions of Lie to Me from iTunes on my home server, these things take a while.  I can take that. But after 2 days of utter slowness I decided to pause the HD downloads simply so I can finish the MobileNavigator download and be on with it.  All was well with the world until I unplugged the power supply from my MacBook Pro (yes it had plenty of battery) with just under 1 minute remaining in the download, and POOF!

My download, mysteriously, started over. You know, from the beginning.  So after 2 days, one interrupted internet connection (which had already prompted the download to start anew rather than continue where it left off), and a nearly finished 1.44 GB download, I have exactly nothing to show for it except for 3 hours remaining in my downloads list in iTunes.

Thanks Apple.

____________________________
1.  A couple of the new features of MobileNavigator include iPod controls within the app and text-to-voice.

 ::  post comment  ::  2009-09-12  ::  Christopher Williams

We’re Back

10 September 2009 // Filed under Uncategorized

It’s been a long time since we have posted anything.  In fact, over 2 years.  We’ve had to go through an entire restructuring of the site, hence the missing posts of yore.  My last post consisted of a bunch of four letter words over the debacle known as iPhone activation.  Sure, now it’s a breeze, but if you were one of the fools waiting in line for hours for the priveledge of handing Apple $599 for the original iPhone, you’d know that some people got activated with ease, while others, like myself, had to wait for over 2 full days before my phone was useful.  Great.  Thanks.  I really appreciated that, AT&T.

We’ll be talking about all things Apple here at macademic, and that starts . . . now.  Well with the next post anyways.

 ::  post comment  ::  2009-09-10  ::  Christopher Williams