Premium Game Section a Good Idea, But What Price?

Word on the street is, Apple is considering a $19.99 premium section for iPhone applications. The idea of a special section for games and apps missed by the crush of $.99 apps is a good idea. Is $19.99 the right price point? Should any price point be applied at all? Let's say you created highly specialized software for the medical industry. If it currently retails for more than $19.99, would you feel pressured to lower the price to fit this catgeory? Or if this is only for iPhone games, wouldn't your app be just as lost as it is now? And speaking of games, couldn't this lead to titles that would have been $9.99 simply increasing the price to get the premium moniker?

I'm not against a premium section, but tying it to a specific price point could be tricky. Also, it's key that there are some requirements for these apps. Might I suggest:

Playable Demo. If you want someone to spring for, in some cases, 20 times what they would pay for other apps, you should be confident enough to show it first.

Fix The Review System.  Look we're as big of fans of everyone having their say as anyone, but the "this app is too expensive, click yes if you agree" reviews have got to go. How about third party, or industry reviews of premium games. I happen to know a website that's done hundreds of app reviews, and would be willing to help out...

In-game Video These are premium, right? So how about more information before I buy the game. If we can get video previews of iPod Clickwheel gameplay, we certainly should get the same thing for premium iPhone titles.

Apple's a smart company, and I'm sure they can find a way to differentiate premium apps. As it is, it's as if all the games are in the same bargain bin at the toy store.

Forget Flash, How About Quicktime on the iPhone

I know it sounds crazy at first... After all, can't the iPhone play QuickTime. Well, yes, some of it. If you navigate to websites with embedded Quicktime (A small portion of sites, but that's for another blog entry) you'll find some that have QuickTime that plays fine. As a matter of fact, for awhile, a site I previously worked on had functioning QuickTime clips, despite me not doing anything to them. Meanwhile sites like lynda.com cannot currently have their QT clips played on the phone.

Yes, they can tweak some settings to make it work on their end, but it makes a lot more sense to have Apple make Quicktime playback ubiquitous on the iPhone. It's their own technology after all! Even the Apple website isn't immune. As I tuned into the quarterly results conference call, I had to go on the road. So I thought, maybe, just maybe, the iPhone would be able to stream that QT content. Nope. The above message stating the iPhone version would be available later via iTunes. Apple, do you want QuickTime/h.264 to be a standard, or not? 

The iPhone's QuickTime playback capability could be more accurately described as iTunes paid content playback. Is that by accident?

Apple and AT&T Could Turn Netbook Craze On Its Head

AT&T, according to CNN Money has been in discussions with notebook manufacturers about bundling 3G service with laptops. Now, who do you think AT&T would prefer to work with? Who do you think might be paying attention to offering a Netbook (or a Netbook-priced solution) that's head and shoulders above the rest?

Consider it for just a moment. We've commented here before on the fact many of these netbooks are really spiffy. Apple's previous statements have indicated the machines are far too underpowered for most consumers. Fair enough. Now imagine a full-fledged Apple netbook, offered for say, $700, but it's just $499 with an AT&T contract. I know, especially for those of us with an iPhone, we wouldn't want another monthly fee... But if the device truly was far beyond other netbooks, much like the original iPhone vs. mobile phones at the time, Maybe, just maybe, Apple would have a hit on its hands, and silence critics (us) of its lack of netbook presence.

Apple doesn't make the Fortune 100 best companies to work for 2009 list

I'm not sure I agree with Fortune's list which can be found here. Having worked for the Cupertino company, I can say that in all categories judged by Fortune - Apple has strong marks. Employees, Apple has over 32,000 world wide. First place has 7,853. It doesn't look like Fortune uses a more is better formula for this statistic which brings into question why it's listed there.

Lets look at the 2nd stat. Job growth and applicants. There's no way to know about this, but I'm sure Apple has vastly more applicants than openings seeing it did make the Fortune most admired list ranking in first place.

The 3rd stat is pay. Again I can't speak with any certainty, but Apple was quite fair with it's salaries of corporate employees.

The 4th stat is benefits. Apple had plenty. There was the subsidized gym, stock purchase plan, great healthcare options . . . everything you'd expect from an industry leader.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that Apple has all the right stuff based on the categories listed in the report so I have to assume Fortune is basing it's rankings off something else entirely. Unfortunately Fortune hasn't identified what that is. I wonder why they've left Apple off the list . . . again.

TDL Live This week: (1/26-2/6)

It was another raucous edition of TDL Live last night. We talked about breastfeeding photos, Palm Pre, femtocell, and of course all things Apple. First, a quick reminder, you can subscribe through iTunes to never miss an episode. Or you can hope its one of the weeks we remember to post it here in the blog. Don't risk it.