GPS Kit for the iPhone Video Review

There's been a great deal of buzz about the TomTom app for the iPhone, along with reviews of other turn-by-turn navigation apps. There's a different way people use GPS units though, and it rarely has anything to do with driving directions.

GPS Kit re-creates the aspects of a GPS that are useful to people trekking on foot, whether it's hiking, selling something door-to-door, or maybe fishing at a favorite lake. GPS Kit does a great job of showing you where you've been, and where you're going with the kind of data expected from a rugged gps: pace, elevation, time, speed, and path travelled are all displayed.

I recently tested the app at a local state park, and found it to be a wonderful addition. At a glance I could see how far I'd gone, how long it would take me at my current pace, etc.  

One other note: if you are actively using the app while on a long trail, you might want to consider an external battery/case combo for the iPhone, as the battery will drain within a few hours.

UPDATE: We've been contacted by the developer and want correct an error in the first posting and video review: GPS Kit only uses the cell network to download map info. Once you have that for the area you're headed into, you should be fine even without a cell network.

iTune Link

Take a Look:

Fixes for the App Store From A Developer Perspective

Yesterday, we told you about iGarageSale, an iPhone app that has been rated mature or 17+ due to the fact that with some digging, you can find a search box, and be exposed the horror that is the internet.

Examples of rejected and poorly rated apps have been cropping up over the last few weeks, but the question is, is there a better solution? As pointed out by bryman in the comments yesterday, the ratings are designed to limit access via the parental controls. so if a parent has made the decision to block Safari for example, it makes sense that any app that could give access to the internet should also be blocked.

From a developer's standpoint, it's a matter of the stigma that goes along with the rating, or the powerlessness of an outright rejection. Aaron Kardell, developer of the iGarageSale app, gave us his three ways to improve the app approval/rejection process: 

1. Transparency on the rules. Right now, there is no standard set of rules for developers to follow that will guarantee that their app is accepted -- or even that their app will have a high likelihood of being accepted. As it is, developers are gambling that Apple will approve their app. This makes it hard -- especially for independent developers -- to invest a significant amount of time on apps when there is uncertainty about their apps being approved.
2. Consider ways to decrease the review time, especially for updates. Right now if an issue is discovered in a released application, it will often take a minimum of 7 days, and usually longer for an update to be released on the App Store. I have a friend who has a bug fix for one of his apps that has been waiting for approval for 5 weeks. While he's waiting for approval of the fix, he's received a number of complaints through the ratings wondering why the issue hasn't been fixed. The issue is that the approval process as is doesn't easily scale to the number of developers now involved in submitting apps. I think the solution to this might be a trusted developer program of sorts that would allow minor updates through without as much oversight. And part of this could be that if there was bad behavior on the part of a developer that abused this process, there might be repercussions such as the loss of the ability to sell future apps in the store.
3. Meaningful app ratings. The standard line now appears to be that any app that provides unfiltered Internet access (regardless of the purpose) should have a 17+ rating. I can kind of understand where Apple is coming from on this, but the difficult part is the labeling that goes with that. In the case of iGarageSale, users are warned that the app contains "Frequent/Intense Mature/Suggestive Themes". While it is true you could misuse the app and seek out mature/suggestive content, it is misleading and inaccurate to say that standard use of the app contains "Frequent/Intense Mature/Suggestive Themes". I think they need a new category called "Unfiltered Internet Access" that is sufficiently explained. Keep the 17+ label if they must, but make it clear to users why the 17+ label exists.

Probably the hardest and biggest change as Aaron has laid out above, is the approval process itself. Apple has stated they have 40 people working full time to review/process 8500 apps per week. Scaling will continue to be an issue as the App Store shows no signs of slowing growth.

Joe Hewitt, developer of the Facebook for iPhone app recently aired his frustration with process on his blog:

The fact is this: Apple does not have the means to perform thorough quality assurance on any app. This is up to the developer. We have our own product managers and quality assurance testers, and we are liable to our users and the courts if we do anything evil or stupid. Apple may catch a few shallow bugs in the review process, but let's face it, the real things they are looking for are not bugs, but violations of the terms of service. This is all about lawyers, not quality, and it shows that the model of Apple's justice system is guilty until proven innocent. They don't trust us, and I resent that, because the vast majority of us are trustworthy.

I shouldn't have to argue for why it is better to assume people are innocent until proven guilty. There are plenty of successful platforms out there which free developers to publish anything, but punish them if they do something harmful. This allows developers to move fast, fix bugs immediately, get feedback from users at a very low cost. Any bug that Apple finds after their two week delay would have been found by users on day one, and fixed on day two. I'd rather have a bug in the wild for one day than have an app in the review queue for two weeks.

What do you think? Would these changes mean any meaningful difference for consumers? Should developers simply suck it up and realize they have to play by Apple's rules if they want access to the fastest growing platform?

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...

Bebot for the iPhone and iPod Touch Video Review

Who doesn't like a cute robot? And when that cute robot can help anyone feel like a music synth genius, then all the better. Enter Bebot for the iPhone and iPod Touch. Bebot is drop-dead simple: just start tapping the screen to get different notes/pitches. Hold your finger on the screen and move up and down to move through different scales and tones.

Once that novelty has worn off, you can double-tap in the lower right corner, and experience all the different cool modes of bebot, including loop which loops the sounds you just made, while you add more.

The only downside is the app doesn't offer a way to record your creations, (although you can save your pre-sets) so while it's fun for fiddling, or perhaps in a live music environment, don't expect to save your masterpieces within the program.

We would recommend it on the robot artwork alone, though!

Here's a look:

Quick Review of the First Live iPhone Concert

It was a bit under the radar until the day of the concert, but Friday night, Techno group Underworld performed what was billed as the first concert live to the iPhone. We're not a music site, so we'll reserve judgement on the music, and focus on the stream.

The audio sounded great (or at least as great as it was miked at the event. The video, was ok. It certainly wasn't the same as watching a downloaded h.264 file, but it was watchable, we didn't experience any significant stuttering or dropouts. Hey, Akamai has streamed a few events in their time.

Worth noting, we watched the stream over wifi. If you want to check it out for yourself (just pretend it's live) head over to iphone.akamai.com from your iPhone and enjoy.