After the Tablet, What's Next For Apple?

In the world of trying to predict what's next for Apple, you can never be too far ahead. So we say, let's leapfrog over this whole tablet thing, and go straight to the next paradigm-shifting device: The _______. After the tablet, what's left? Apple has conquered the world of digital music. The iPhone is well on the way to dominating smartphone and/or all phone sales. The tablet could re-invent a sleepy product category, but then what? 

Maybe we see an Apple-branded TV, but that would feel like a small evolution: most likely taking a monitor from one of the big manufacturers, and throwing an Apple TV in it. 

While we would never count Apple out when it comes to re-defining a product category, or creating a brand new one, perhaps we're nearing the end of the golden age of hardware advances. Apple could conceivably put a gaming console on the market, but the Pippin didn't do too well. Sure, these are different times, but it's also a market with three strong console manufacturers, and becoming the fourth wouldn't guarantee success. (bear in mind no one is making iPhone money in console hardware sales, with most breaking even.)

One possible future frontier for Apple would be services. Who wouldn't want to see cable television re-envisioned? Or maybe Apple would become a phone carrier. As far-fetched as these ideas sound, the company will have to go further and further afield to find new product categories/services. iPhones will get cheaper, iPods will get smaller, Macs will get faster, and tablets will get whatever it is tablets get. But the question is, will that be enough for Apple, or will they branch even further from their computer roots?

TDL Live This Week: (8/24 - 8/31)

If you missed it earlier tonight, here's a look back at TDL Live for this week. We covered the pending Snow Leopard release of course, along with the new PS3 and PSP gaming options from Sony, Apple marketshare gains in Canada, District 9, Avatar, Zune HD, the app store review process, oh and urine stains.

Just another look at the week in tech news!

Even Garage Sale Apps are Rated Mature

These are crazy app approval days we're living in. Today's exhibit: iGarageSale has earned the 17+ mature rating from Apple's app review process.

I've been to a lot of yard sales in my day, and aside from the occasional risque board game, I've never seen anything I would rate as 17+, although that's just what's happened to iGarageSale (review coming soon), an app that brings together multiple sources of sales, and shows the sales nearest to you.

Aaron Kardell, the developer of the app has a blog entry explaining this most recent odd rating decision:

When we originally submitted iGarageSale to Apple, we used a questionnaire provided by Apple to determine the rating. We came up with a 12+ rating, citing Infrequent Mature/Suggestive Themes and Infrequent Profanity/Crude Humor. Understand, though, that we were doing this to err on the safe side. We have yet to see a garage sale listing with profanity, crude humor, or mature/suggestive themes. However, it could happen and likely will at some point, so we thought a rating of Infrequent Profanity, etc. / 12+ would be safe.

Nine days after submitting our first copy of the app to Apple, we received a rejection notice by e-mail. The rejection notice stated: “iGarageSale 1.0 allows unfiltered access to Craigslist, which include frequent mature or suggestive themes.

Kardell goes on to cite the concern that this rating will negatively affect the perception of the app:

On the one hand, Apple accurately determined that it is possible to get to a search box for all of craigslist within the iGarageSale app. This seems to miss the point, though. The primary purpose of the app is to browse and search garage sales, and it takes a considerably more effort to get to a search box for all of craigslist, than it would to simply open up Safari and browse to craigslist.org.

What can be done? Yes, Apple has a right to "protect" their users from objectionable content, but when the content that can be accessed can be accessed just as easily using an app Apple has included (Safari) how is anyone "protected" from the material.

Tomorrow, we'll tackle some of the possible solutions, and we'd love to hear yours in the comments below.

It's Official: Snow Leopard on Aug. 28th

Just moments ago, Apple's online store came back to life to reveal Snow Leopard along with the much suspected Aug. 28th release date. Will you be buying the next big cat?

Boot Camp Shows Apple's iPhone Defense is Bunk

While you were out enjoying the weekend (hopefully), we were here digesting Apple and AT&T's response to the FCC's query regarding the "rejection" of the Google Voice app.

If you haven't heard, Apple clarifies, saying the app hasn't been rejected, but rather:

The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature.

Apple goes on to make more valid points, concerning the security of the transfer of the iPhone's contacts to/through Google. To be sure though, what you see above is their biggest concern with the App. The problem is, it just doesn't make any sense, especially when you consider one of Apple's other products.

Perhaps you're familiar with Boot Cam: Apple's utility allowing you to boot your mac into Windows if you install a copy on your Mac. The biggest concern with Google Voice is the manner in which it duplicates the functionality of the OS/apps Apple has placed on the phone, and yet Apple freely, and helpfully, includes the ability to completely duplicate the entire functionality of the OS on their computers.

Something just doesn't add up. Apple doesn't block Firefox from the Mac, because as much as they might want Safari to be the biggest browser, they know how foolish such a move would be. Why then would they reject an app for the iPhone that duplicates phone functions? Apple and AT&T both say AT&T has/had no say in this app rejection/further study. There's really no other rational reason for Apple to decline the app. If Apple truly believes they have created a superior dialing app/contact app, etc, then they shouldn't be bothered by an app that duplicates those functions. Let the consumer decide which is truly the better implementation.

And let's get away from this idea that the iPhone requires a special walled garden because it is a phone. The iPhone is not a phone, it's a lightweight netbook with 3G access. In the future this is how we will see every smartphone.

When you categorize it as a computer, this behavior can't be justified. Surely Apple wouldn't think that all the software for a computer should be approved by, and purchased through the maker of that computer exclusively. Then again, maybe they do...