Despite Google Android's long market-share rise against Apple iOS, developers continued to stick with iOS as their first deployment target. While Android offered superior volume, that volume was fragmented between different versions of the OS and disparate hardware. Meanwhile, Apple offered better development tools plus clearer, more profitable revenue options. Even open-source developers tended to congregate on highly proprietary iOS.

Something changed in 2012, however, and Android-related open-source development exploded.

This makes sense, given the target audience for mobile applications: consumers. Even though open source now permeates server-side computing, and drives industry trends like cloud computing and Big Data, it has had a negligible impact on the desktop, where mainstream users don't want access to source code and simply want polished products that work. Hence, despite the impressive efforts to clone Microsoft Office with OpenOffice and now LibreOffice, the world still happily gives Microsoft billions of dollars of Office profit each quarter. 

It's easier to stay on that beaten path.

Hence, while I don't expect open-source developer affinity for Android to squash iOS anytime soon, it's still a troubling sign for Apple. Even on the desktop, many mainstream applications are open source, including Adium (IM client for the Mac), VLC Media Player, Handbrake, and more. And if Android is the place open-source developers target for their innovations, we're likely to see the next Big Data-like trend emerge on Android, not on iOS, just as Linux is the home of cloud computing and Big Data on the server.

Open-source developers matter. And, apparently, they matter most to Android. 

Guest author Derek Brown is a technology executive and analyst who blogs at One Blind Squirrel.

Android, it seems, is the worm that eats away at Apple's core.

According to Gartner, Android-based handsets outsold iOS-based handsets 4-to-1 on a worldwide basis in the first quarter of 2013, up from a ratio of about 2.5-to-1 in the same period of 2012. As such, Android accounted for 74% of global smartphone sales last quarter, up from 57% in the first quarter of 2012, while iOS accounted for just 18%, down from approximately 23% last year.

Apple's Strengths Irrelevant Going Forward

Apple bulls/fans (and even some critics) will likely race to highlight such defenses as:

• Apple didn't have a major new release last quarter.
• Tablet sales should be weighed in this discussion.
• The installed base of iOS devices should be taken into account.
• Developers still generate more revenue through iOS than Android.
• Apple continues to generate the majority of the industry's profit.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Those points are all very true. Unfortunately for Apple, though, they're also largely irrelevant going forward, given the alarming rate at which consumers worldwide are speaking with their wallets and selecting Android handsets over iOS handsets. With just a few more quarters like this, coupled with the cumulative effect of similar sales data over the past 2-3 years and the likely coming wave of Android-based tablets, it is a given (to me, anyway) that Android will be soon be effectively ubiquitous around the globe.

In the world of technology platforms, ubiquity matters (a lot) when developers, manufacturers, etc., are considering future products/solutions.

The Mobile Battle Is Over - And Google Won

And, so, I will reiterate the view I've held for some time now: The mobile battle that Apple started, first with the launch of iPod in 2001 and then moved into hyperdrive with the introduction of iPhone and iPad in 2007 and 2010, respectively, is over (or, will be over shortly), and Google/Android is the victor.

Make no mistake, Apple will clearly continue to play a prominent role in the industry and maintain leadership in some respects. It will also continue to boast a large installed base and a substantial number of loyalists and devotees. But the company's days of dominance, let alone an effective monopolist, are behind it.

Apple's Success Was A Once-In-A-Generation Event

Pundits, analysts and investors need to wrap their heads around one simple notion: Apple's product cycle and performance between 2001-2012 was a once-in-a-generation event. In my view, no company in history has had (or, likely, will soon have agin) so many successive "grand slams" as did Apple with iPod, iTunes, Mac, iOS, iPhone and, finally, iPad. The company's hardware, software and "it-just-works" approach to integration absolutely annihilated existing competition and ignited massive new markets in which Apple had a multiyear near-monopoly and from which Apple was able to generate once-in-a-generation revenue growth and profitability.

As unfair as it may be, the inevitable comparisons to those days will not look good for Apple for some time. The hard reality is that the company's future — even under the best of circumstances — will likely reflect diminished influence and declining revenue (perhaps substantially so), with the prospect of shrinking margins to boot.

Apple Stuck At Square One In The Cloud

To make matters worse for Apple, I think the company is poorly positioned for the battleground of tomorrow: Web (or cloud) services that function like utilities — seamlessly, across all devices, across all operating systems, all the time — at low or no incremental cost.

As I discussed in a previous post, Welcome to Google’s Playground, Apple, the increasing importance of Web services substantially diminishes the value of Apple’s closed-loop hardware/software core, while simultaneously highlighting the strengths of Google’s business. Web services are Google's lifeblood, and the company prints money, either directly or indirectly, from use of many of these cloud-based services, even if those services are accessed via an Apple device (e.g., Maps or Gmail for iOS).

Apple, on the other hand, is almost at square one and, as a result, may be forced to spend big to acquire services that have proven themselves in the hands of consumers at scale.

Fun days for Apple, I know. But, hey, at least it’s not Dell!

We're still weeks away from Apple's World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) on June 10-14, but one thing's for sure: Plenty of iPhone and iPad users are hoping for a fresh design and a more open, customizable experience. 

Last week, ReadWrite asked our esteemed readers what you're hoping to see in iOS 7. The two biggest take-aways:

1. ReadWrite readers want iOS to be more customizable.
2. ReadWrite readers would really like Android-style widgets on their iPhone and iPads.

(Before we go any further, though, let's be totally clear: These results are not statistically representative of iOS users generally, but they do illuminate what many ReadWrite readers would like to see in iOS7.)

Make iOS More Customizable

When asked if iOS should open up and become more customizable, almost two thirds (64%) of respondents said Yes. Just 28% - less than a third - thought Apple should retain its strict, top-down control because this is how the company ensures a bulletproof user experience. 

That justification might be historically true, but it's becoming harder for Apple to ignore just how effectively Google is managing to catch up in terms of Android's UX design, while not sacrificing the flexibility Android has traditionally granted its users. For years, Apple fans could laugh off Android as a rusty, imperfect copycat with a lot of growing to do. And they were mostly right.

But grown it has, and now Android is a more potent competitor to iOS than ever. With its chief competitor offering a far more customizable experience, Apple faces growing pressure to loosen its grip on iOS and give more control to its users. There's no guarantee that Apple will do that (and even if it does, the changes will no doubt be gradual), but the user demand seems clear. 

No Wonder Jailbreaking iOS Is So Popular 

This desire for greater control is exhibited in the growing popularity of jailbreaking - the unauthorized removal of Apple's limits on how people can use iOS. Even though there is no jailbreak available for the latest version of iOS, there are at least 30 million jailbroken iOS devices, according to Cydia creator Jay Freeman's website (Cydia is the "alternative to Apple's app store for 'jailbroken devices' "). Granted, that's a small percentage of the more than 500 million iOS devices Apple has sold to date, but the demand appears to be growing. When the evasi0n jailbreak tool for iOS 6 launched earlier this year, it was so popular that not only did people trying to access crash the site hosting it, but they crashed the Cydia app store and caused performance issues that lasted for days. With 7 million devices cracked in four days, evasi0n was the most popular iOS jailbreaking tool yet. 

Typically, when we write about the jailbreaking phenomenon here on ReadWrite, the chorus from Android-loving commenters is consistent: Google's mobile OS has been able to do XYZ for years, you doofus. Get a clue. Switch to Android. Snark aside, these folks have a point. Many of reasons people jailbreak their iPhones and iPads are indeed features that come natively on Android, or are at least a Google Play app download away.  

In our survey, ReadWrite asked readers to list the features they'd most like to see in iOS 7. The second most-used word in the responses was "customization." Other popular requests included improvements to iOS's multitasking, quicker access to settings, multiple user profiles and improvements to the Notification Center. 

Give Us Widgets Or Give Us Death!

Overall, the most commonly requested feature was the inclusion of widgets on the home screen. The use of icons displaying live data has long been familiar to users of other operating systems and has even found its way into at least one iOS 7 preview mockup. Apparently, lots of iOS users are sick of looking at the Weather app icon and seeing the same sun that's been shining since the iPhone first launched in 2007. 

In total, 734 people responded to our survey. Are these just a bunch of Android fans flooding our Poll Daddy widget with pro-Google sentiment? Hardly. Not only did we give Android die-hards a chance to reveal themselves in the first question, but 61% of responses were made from iOS devices. Another 13% came from Mac computers. 

Anything else you're dying to see in iOS 7 when it's announced next month? Let us know in the comments. 

Related Reading: 

• Why Jailbreaking iOS 6 Is Popular Enough To Break Cydia
• Why Apple Really Needs To Kill It With iOS 7
• Apple's iOS Design Changes Threaten To Delay The Next iPhone
• Will Apple's New Design Changes Kill The Luster Steve Jobs Loved? 

Designing a mobile app can seem simple when you are sketching it out on the whiteboard. But when you actually sit down in your developer environment and get cracking, turning your ideas into reality is not always so easy.

That's only the beginning, of course. What if you need to design your app for both the iPhone and Android? You will very quickly learn that you cannot just cut and paste your design from one platform to the other. Android and iOS frameworks share some basic principles, but when it comes to design, they are as different as ebony and ivory. 

For instance, the notification bars in iOS and Android may look similar, but they perform different functions on each platform. And did you know that the action bar interface icon for iPhone is 20x20 pixels, while Android's is 24x24 density-independent pixels? Do you know the difference between a pixel and a density-independent pixel?

Here’s a quick reminder, from StackOverflow: Density-independent Pixels - an abstract unit based on the physical density of the screen. These units are relative to a 160dpi screen, so one dp is one pixel on a 160dpi screen. The ratio of dp-to-pixel changes with the screen density, but not necessarily in direct proportion. Note: The compiler accepts both "dip" and "dp," though "dp" is more consistent with "sp."

Sometimes you just need an easy chart to remember these kinds of things. Mobile cloud-service provider Kinvey created a quick infographic going over the basics of iOS and Android design for easy reference when you are pulling out your hair trying to port your iPhone icons over to an Android app (or vice versa). Check it out below.

What are your biggest app design problems? Let us know in the comments.

With the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) mere weeks away, anticipation for the next version of Apple's mobile operating system is about to reach a fevered pitch. As the rumor mill revs up in preparation, we thought we'd ask you, dear readers, what features you'd most like to see in iOS 7? (Take our survey below.)

The pressure on Apple to push out a substantial iOS upgrade hasn't been this intense in some time. After all, this will be first major release since the Great Maps Debacle of 2012 and, more important, since Jony Ive took over as the head of Apple's Human Interface Design team. 

(See also: Why Apple Really, Really Needs To Kill It WIth iOS 7)

Indeed, most of the chatter about iOS 7 so far has been about what it will look like. Flatter. Fewer skeuomorphic design elements. A total overhaul, some have suggested. iOS could certainly use a visual refresh, but there's a far more important question: What will it do? 

Screw The Skeuo-Whatever. What Will iOS 7 Do?

Common requests include multi-user login, more robust security options, an overhaul of the dull Mail app and enhanced enterprise and BYOD features. Inevitably, we'll see Siri learn a few more tricks. Apple Maps will continue to improve.

As always, there's a lesson or two to be learned from the jailbreaking community. Expect to see a few features lifted from Cydia when iOS 7 is unveiled in June. Plenty of us would love to have the ability to choose new default apps for things like email, maps and Web browsing, but such a move would probably play too much to Google's benefit for Apple to stomach. 

More generally, there's a certain pressure on Apple to remain competitive with Android. In the early days, Android was rusty and small enough for Apple to largely ignore in its product development. Now the competition is very real, with Android-based phones and tablets getting sleeker and more functional all the time. If nothing else, this might mean that Apple will need to consider making iOS more customizable and less restrictive. 

Be heard! Take our survey, below, and be sure to elaborate further in comments if you'd like.

Guest author Derek Brown is a technology executive and analyst who blogs at One Blind Squirrel.

Yesterday at the playground, Google threw a handful of sand in Apple’s eye.

With a subtle, yet powerful update to its Gmail for iOS app, links to YouTube, Google Maps and Chrome now go directly to those relevant apps (if installed), instead of the mobile web.

In my view, this is an absolutely brilliant backdoor play through which Google can not only neutralize Apple, but also leverage Apple’s tremendous success to its own benefit, by enhancing the experience of Google’s dedicated users, deepening loyalty to Google’s own products, and driving incremental revenue for Google.

Perhaps more important, yesterday’s Gmail for iOS update is a textbook example of why Google will emerge victorious (at Apple’s expense) in the battleground of tomorrow, Web services.

As discussed in "Welcome to Google’s Playground, Apple," mobile hardware and core OS functionality have largely reached a near-term point of peak innovation; as a result, the product itself will become effectively transparent to the end user, with attention, instead, shifting to the Web (or, cloud) services/content that those devices allow easy access to on an anywhere, anytime basis.

Unfortunately for Apple, this shift substantially diminishes the value of its closed-loop hardware/software core, while simultaneously highlighting the strengths of Google’s business. To this end, almost everything Google has done since inception has focused on anywhere, anytime cloud services that function like utilities - seamlessly, across all devices, across all operating systems, all the time - at low or no incremental cost, in the face of stiff competition.

Moreover, Google absolutely prints money, either directly or indirectly, from use of many of these cloud-based services, even if those services are accessed via an Apple device (e.g., Gmail for iOS). Apple, on the other hand, is almost at ground zero.

For Apple to compete broadly on the battleground of tomorrow, it must quickly introduce a broad spectrum of high-impact, high-value, mass-consumption Web services that function seamlessly across all vendors, all OSs, and all devices. And, the only way I see it doing so expeditiously and successfully is through acquisition - buying services that have already proven themselves in the hands of consumers at scale.

If Apple doesn’t, it risks seeing its precious hardware turned into little more than access devices for Google’s services, even as it continues losing marketshare to Google’s own Android-based hardware devices, which do an even better job of accessing Google’s services.

Seems like a slightly less painful lose-lose to me.

Lead image courtesy of Northfoto/Shutterstock

Dear Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata, 

I write to you not as a know-it-all tech analysis pontificator or even a hardcore gamer. I'm just a guy who spent his childhood Saturday afternoons hunting for 8-bit Warp Whistles and Tanooki Suits in Super Mario Bros 3 for Nintendo. And I have a simple idea. 

As you know, Nintendo hasn't been doing so well lately. Your recently-revealed plans to bring smartphone-style apps to the Wii U represent a step in the right direction. If you want Nintendo to truly thrive in age of mobile computing, however, I'd suggest a willingness to go even further: bring Super Mario to my iPhone.

That is to say, Nintendo should let casual gamers like me have the option of downloading old NES and Super Nintendo games to our iOS and Android devices. Mario. Zelda. Kirby. Metroid. Charge us a few bucks for them. We'll pay. And you'll have our undivided attention on the devices to which we're already glued. Those of us who are semi-serious enough to consider buying stand-alone gaming consoles would be even more likely to do so. Just delight us. You see, competition for our collective attention span has never been more fierce. Now's your chance to grab a chunk of it. 

The Wii Is 7, And Nintendo Is Struggling

One year ago, your company posted its first-ever operating loss,  shedding $458 million due to lackluster hardware and game sales. Nintendo was fortunate enough to return to profitability this year, but sales of the new Wii U and 3DS consoles haven't been nearly as high as anticipated. 

It's a sharp contrast from 2006 when the first Wii launched. Much to my delight, my brother gave me one for Christmas only after hunting one down for weeks by going from store to store. Demand was huge and business was booming, you'll recall. These days, finding a Wii U is easy. The problem is that fewer of us want them.

Over time, sales of the original Wii naturally declined, as they will for the Wii U. Seemingly, the best conventional hope you have of driving those numbers north lies in slashing the price (which won't help profits) and releasing must-have games for the console and hoping that they're good — and well-publicized — enough to pique the interest of everyday consumers, whose attention is now firmly fixated elsewhere. 

Shortly after the original Wii's hugely successful launch, another sought-after piece of hardware was unveiled. When Steve Jobs first held up the iPhone on stage in 2007, it marked the beginning of a revolution in personal computing and a shift in how casual gamers discover and play video games. Many of the very same people enthralled by the mainstream appeal of the Wii were now unboxing iPhones and downloading Angry Birds. Apple has since sold more than 500 million iOS devices, a number that only continues to grow alongside similarly impressive figures from Android. 

Bring Mario And Luigi Into The Smartphone Age

As the the mobile age has unfolded, Mario and Luigi have been nowhere to be found, remaining stubbornly locked up in your company's proprietary hardware. Unless one jailbreaks the device and downloads an emulator, playing classic NES and Super Nintendo games on iOS is out the question. It's unfortunate for consumers and it seems like a huge missed opportunity for Nintendo. 

Since I bought my first iPhone in 2008, I've had this discussion with more people than I can count. If only you could buy the original Mario games, the Legend of Zelda and other NES classics on iOS, it would be so awesome. Yes, the other person and I always agree, we would pay for that. The more games, the more money we'd plunk down. It's not just gamers and geeks, either. People who have absolutely no discernible interest in video games generally still harbor a nostalgic attachment to the side scrolling adventures they grew up playing.  

Take Super Mario Brothers 3, which was released in the U.S. in 1990. Like most kids I knew at the time, I was positively addicted to that game. To this day, it remains the highest-grossing non-bundled video game in history. The only way to buy it now is by downloading it to the Wii or Wii U via Nintendo's online marketplace. That's great if you have a Wii, but not everyone is going to buy a gaming console, even one as mainstream-friendly as the Wii or Wii U.

Indeed, the original Wii has sold just shy of 100 million units since its launch. That's less than one-fifth of the number of iOS devices in the world. Meanwhile, Android is on track to hit 1 billion activations later this year.  That's a lot of potential customers, and Nintendo is ignoring them. 

Make It A Hardware Play 

I know what you're going to say, Mr. Iwata. We're Nintendo. That's just not how we do things. If people want to play our games, they have to use our hardware. End of story. 

I'm not proposing that Nintendo abandon its gaming hardware business or even open up its new games to alternative platforms. But the mobile ecosystems of today are too massive to sanely ignore. A company like Nintendo could find a healthy new revenue stream by making already-popular titles available in these enormous marketplaces, where millions — and before long, billions — of potential customers are waiting. 

Another obvious (and totally fair) objection is that these old school games aren't made for touch screens. And it's true. Playing Zelda on an iPhone could be a potentially annoying experience. Here's where another opportunity exists for Nintendo: Design a sleek, fold-out smartphone case that doubles as a vintage NES gamepad that works with Nintendo-developed apps. For tablets, sell us something similar that fits the form factor and makes gameplay a pleasure. Make it an attachable accessory or a wireless Nintendo-branded controller. Either way, we'll happily give you our money for it. 

Rake In New Cash — Maybe Even Console Buyers

Will mobile games and smartphone-compatible hardware rake in as much as $300 consoles and $50 games? Probably not. But such a strategy could add a potentially healthy revenue stream that could help supplement what Nintendo brings in from its own hardware sales without cannibalizing them.

In fact, by tapping into these ecosystems and making a play for our attention spans, Nintendo could reel in new customers, giving them a taste for its characters and gameplay (or reigniting their love of the Mushroom Kingdom). 

Such a move would represent a bold departure from Nintendo's well-established strategy of tying games exclusively to its own hardware, but it only has to be as radical as Nintendo wants. Start with a few NES titles for iOS and if the results are strong, expand to other titles and platforms. If not, let these iOS games bring in a few extra bucks while you focus on recapturing the living room. 

Bold, yes. But as plenty of other industries have learned, the proliferation of mobile devices has upended the way things used to be. Thriving sometimes requires rethinking old paradigms. Besides, if Super Mario Brothers 3 wouldn't skyrocket to the top of the App Store charts over night, I'd be totally shocked.  

In a CNBC interview interview aired on Monday, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates suggests that Windows 8 and Microsoft's Surface tablet line could ultimately dethrone Apple's iPad from its global tablet crown because iPad "users are frustrated." 

Yikes! I guess Gates has access to the really good stuff.

Office Should Be Everywhere

Last month, I took Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to task for delaying the arrival of Microsoft Office productivity suite on devices running Apple's iOS and Google's Android operating system. I was hoping Gates would set Ballmer straight. Unfortunately, Gates appears as confused as Ballmer - and equally tied to the contracting PC ecosystem over which Microsoft has long ruled.

(See also Ballmer's Latest Blunder: No Office For iOS And Android Till 2014)

It's great that Gates cares so much about user frustration. Only, in this case he gets it exactly wrong:

A lot of (iPad) users are frustrated. They can't type. They can't create documents. So we're providing them something with the benefits they've seen that has made that a big category but without giving up what they expect in a PC. If you have Surface or Surface Pro, you have the portability of the tablet but the richness in terms of the keyboard (and) Microsoft Office of the PC.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Users are not clamoring for iPad to be more like a PC. If anything, users want their PCs to be more like the iPad. So far at least, the market makes that pretty darn clear: In the most recent quarter, Apple sold 19.5 million iPads - compared to 11.8 million in the same quarter last year. The Surface? Not so much.

According to IDC tablet sales data, of the 49.2 million tablets that shipped this past quarter, the Surface accounted for a paltry 0.9 million - 1.8% of the market. In other words, the Surface barely rises above a rounding error. Worse, it's not just the Surface. As IDC notes: "(All) Windows 8 and Windows RT tablets continued to struggle to gain traction in the market." The combined total of Windows 8 and Windows RT sales across all vendors hits a still-minuscule 1.8 million units.

That's about what Apple's iPad line sells in a week.

Gates Doubles Down On Ballmer's Mobile Strategy

Earlier this year, Gates surprised analysts when he publicly stated that Microsoft's mobile strategy was "clearly a mistake." Many observers believed we would soon witness a rapid turnaround in the company's mobile strategy - including the Surface and Windows Phone. 

No such luck. Today's Bill Gates is completely on-message with Steve Ballmer:

Windows 8 is revolutionary in that it takes the benefits of the tablet and the benefits of the PC (so) if you have Surface and Surface Pro you've got that portability of the tablet but the richness in terms of the keyboard and Microsoft Office of the PC.

Gates is looking in the rear view mirror. While the global Windows user base of 1.25 billion is indeed massive, the PC market is no longer growing. Apple's iOS - iPhone and iPad - are poised to surpass Windows. And Apple's iOS is going to be only the second most popular personal computing platform - after Android.

(See also Windows Phone, Still An Underdog, Comes Out Swinging.)

Rather than touting the add-on Surface keyboard and the tablet's support of Office, Microsoft should be focused on porting Office to what will soon be the world's two most popular personal computing platforms - iOS and Android. As I said last month, "There was a time when Apple needed Office to be on the Mac. That time is past. Now, Microsoft needs Office to be on Apple's iOS and Google's Android."

The numbers don't lie: For  the past quarter, the tablet market - which includes Surface - grew 142%. In stark contrast, the PC market fell 13.9%.  

(See also The Real Reason Windows Phone Is Failing.)

Inexplicably, Gates and Ballmer don't seem to see what everyone else is looking at. The market has spoken, and the market does not want to be tied to the PC. Microsoft has an opportunity to leverage its strengths in productivity software to the leading platforms, but is too stubborn to let go of its dreams of Windows dominating the mobile space. Clinging to the proverbial 'stay the course' message is exactly the wrong thing for Microsoft to say and do.

Image of Bill Gates courtesy of Shutterstock. 

Curiosity: What's Inside The Cube, the one-part-smartphone-game, one-part-social-experiment that launched last November, is getting its most substantial update yet. In a move aimed at bringing the contest to a faster close, UK studio 22Cans has accelerated the game to its last 50 layers, in effect erasing the months and months of players tapping away on the giant cube it would have taken to get to the center.

This World Is Predicted To End On May 21

The studio's current estimated end date - unless player participation unexpectedly spikes - is May 21, which coincidentally happens to be the same day Microsoft will announce its next-generation Xbox console. 

"It has been an elongated, protracted experiment in curiosity, but if I'm someone whose fingers are bleeding now, enough is enough," said 22Cans founder Peter Molyneux, known primarily for creating the Fable game series before leaving Microsoft last year to found the independent studio. "We decided that we could have just left it going and probably less and less people would be fascinated... or we could set a layer and it would be a race to the center," he added. 

The new update comes on the heels of last week's quiet addition to the game that let players pay to both remove and add cubelets to the current layer. This feature will remain for some, but not all, of the final 50 layers. 

The idea behind Curiosity is simple: one giant cube, with a secret prize at its center, was handed over to millions of players who all collaboratively chip away at its many layers by tapping one piece (or cubelet) at a time, of which there were 68 billion spread out over hundreds of layers. Only the lucky person to tap the last cubelet gets to see what's inside, and Molyneux has often described that mystery in grandiose fashion, referring to it as "life changing."

(See also: Gaming Legend Peter Molyneux: What Makes A Great Game?)

Curiousity was meant to be both a social experiment in massively multiplayer smartphones games as well as a learning experience for 22Cans, which announced its first multiplatform title Godus on Kickstarter shortly after launching Curiosity.

Curiosity Now About Learning Different Things

"Part of our motivation in doing Curiosity was to learn how to do these things for Godus, like learning how to connect people, how to scale up our servers," Molyneux said. Despite massive server issues hampering Curiosity's launch, the game picked up steam and garnered more than 3 million downloads within one month. Godus also surpassed its Kickstarter goal of £450,000 on the final day, securing 22Cans' future in cross-platform game development. 

With only 50 layers to go, the race to the finish will tight, raising valid concerns that the final tap that wins it all might not be recorded accurately. "When we get to the final five layers, we'll have something called Cube Watch," Molyneux explained. "We'll be watching it 24 hours a day and we'll be sitting in the office waiting for that end to come."

He stressed that the studio has taken substantial measures to protect against cheating and will be able to validate the tapper of the final cubelet as soon as it happens. Players will also get a real-time reminder in the white space around the cube of how many layers are left and what the estimated lifespan of the experiment is. 

"In our hyper-connected world, what happens when we put an objective that is so insanely far off that it becomes almost meaningless?" Now that the objective is almost within grasp, Curiosity is raising new questions about the player motivation and connectedness players await their chance to finally see what's inside the cube. 

Its full title is Super Monster Bros By Adventure Time Pocket Free Games, and it just may be the worst iPhone app ever. Dug up by an excellent IGN series '"iPhone Garbage," the free app is a side-scrolling game that not only blatantly rips off Nintendo with slightly altered Pokémon character designs, but it also employs an aggressive in-app purchase system that spams users constantly with offers at prices up to $100! It's a iPhone rip-off tactic only marginally less offensiver than the ever-popular screenshot scam.

For instance, if you want to use a character other than the default, which is basically a duplicate of Charmander from the original Pokémon games, you need to cough up anywhere from $4.99 for the caveman to a whopping $99.99 for the Charizard look-alike. Then when you're actually playing the game, you're bombarded with offers for other purchases, like $1 to buy more firepower for your character or 20 extra lives for $10. Then there are the full-screen ads for other apps that randomly pop up on-screen in the middle of the game. 

Not surprisingly, the gameplay is beyond terrible. There doesn't seem to be any point outside of scamming people into paying for ridiculous add-ons. The biggest mystery is how this travesty got through Apple's App Store approval process despite apparently infringing on copyrighted Nintendo material and an all-around exploitive design. The games are also available on Google's less-restrictive Google Play market for Android. 

What To Watch Out For

Reviews are certainly a great way to keep others from downloading a terrible app; the first three reviews that show up are titled, respectively, "This should be criminal..," "This app is offensive," and "This should be illegal."  So you may wonder who gets fooled by this nonsense, but how about those unlucky parents with kids who know their Apple ID passwords. All it takes is clicking the Buy button and entering your password, and this game could end up costing some family hundreds of dollars.

In fact, the Top 10 in-app purchases list in the App Store indicates that the number-one item purchased by players is the "Role NO.1 and Unlock All" feature - for an absurd $99.99. 

So who is the mastermind behind this ingenious money-making machine? That would be a developer by the name of Mario Casas, designer of such other gems as Adventure Games Super Monster Bros Plus and Super Squirrel Bros by Mario Casas Games. They all share similar designs and the same in-app purchasing system.  

How To Report Bad Apps to Apple

The App Store has long wrestled with a proliferation of scam apps. IGN's iPhone Garbage series exposes a dark corner of the App Store where games like Krazy Kong (a Donkey Kong rip-off) and Legend of Zenda (a Zelda rip-off) somehow found a home. Apple seems to take an after-the-fact approach to rooting them out, as outlined here by iMore's Rene Ritchie:

Apple's approach seems to be that of YouTube - approve any app that meets technical criteria and then respond to publicity or legal takedown demands from copyright holders when and if they come in. It's one of the smartest, safest approaches, legally, for Apple. They certainly don't want to take on the responsibility of pre-emptively moderating intellectual property, and then have their necks on the lawsuit line when something slips through and the rights holders sue both the offending party and Apple.

So how do you report a bad app like Super Monster Bros By Adventure Time Pocket Free Games?  If you dropped a bundle on this game's purchases, Apple devotes a Web page to reporting issues with purchases. If you managed to hold on to your cash but still want to report the app, the best way is to go through iTunes Support. Be warned, though, Apple hasn't shown much inclination to substantially overhaul its review process to catch these specific types of tricks. So as long as these kinds of exploitive apps can make their creators easy money, they'll keep showing up.  

Update: The game, as well as all other titles from the same developer, are no longer available in the U.S. App Store. It's not clear whether or not they are still available in other countries, but we will update with that information as soon as we can. 

Facebook released an update to its iOS app today that brings one of Home's strongest features—Chat Heads—to the iPhone and iPad. The bad news: Because Apple does not allow third-party apps to mess with its interface the way Google does with Android, Chat Heads is only accessible within the iOS Facebook app.

It's a gutted version of the Android app, which strips away key features like mixing SMS text messages with Facebook messages and popping chats up on top of other apps. Those are what make Chat Heads special.

Alongside Chat Heads, the update allows users to buy and share "stickers" from the social network's new Stickers Store—a feature recently introduced by Path, a mobile social app closely watched by Facebook's designers and engineers. It also gives iPad users a tablet-specific version of the News Feed design overhaul announced in March.

The iPad update is out now. Chat Heads and Stickers features will be rolled out to iPhone users "fully over the next few weeks," the company said in a press release. 

The New Look For iPad

For heavy iPad users, the News Feed update is a welcome upgrade. The tablet screen size allows for an almost exact replica of the new browser-based News Feed that Facebook recently announced. It strips away unnecessary sidebar noise from the News Feed and gives you a simple page of avatars and updates with a special focus on blown-up images. (ReadWrite's Taylor Hatmaker makes a strong argument for why this might be both good and bad for users.)

(See also Chat Heads Will Be The SMS-Killer Facebook Has Been Looking For.)  

As for Chat Heads, it works great. Hitting the messaging button on the top tab and clicking on a name immediately pulls up a friend's face in a Chat Heads bubble. You can add up to four bubbles before it begins automatically swapping out the bottom one. The feature that lets you collapse and move multiple chats works as advertised. It's likely much better on the iPad than it will be on the iPhone given that you have more screen real estate and can keep Chat Heads active all the time. If you don't want to get rid of Chat Heads, a circled 'x' shows up at the bottom of the screen when you hold down the bubble and flicking it down will remove it. 

A Strong First Step, And A Dilemma For Apple

While it may be a drag for iPhone and iPad users to have a subpar version of the Chat Heads experience, it's a start. The big unknown is what's coming in iOS 7, the next big version of Apple's mobile software, which is expected to be out this summer. Will Apple allow not just Facebook but other developers to layer apps on top of each other, the way Google does in Android? Or will it maintain tight control over the experience and risk making Android the bleeding-edge playground for experiments like Chat Heads?

(See also Why Apple Really Needs To Kill It With iOS 7.)  

Apple has no easy choice here. It wants to have the best experience for consumers. But part of that experience is the sense that new apps with the coolest features come out for the iPhone first. If Chat Heads is the best mobile version of Facebook, and you can't get it on the iPhone, where does that leave Apple? 

Update: Facebook has just released the iOS update for iPhone as of 12:01 p.m. PT. The update includes the in-app Chat Heads functionality and bakes in some aspects of the News Feed redesign that are more prominently visible in the iPad and browser versions of Facebook. 

Images courtesy of Facebook.

It's getting harder to make a dent in the mobile app market, especially for Apple and Google. While it's easy to point to the billions being paid to app developers, the reality is that Apple's and Google's 30% cut on such revenue is a rounding error. Given Apple's struggle to fend off Google, and the comparative peanuts it makes on mobile app sales, it may be time for Apple to give even more revenue back to developers to encourage a continued "iOS-first" policy.

Apple CEO Tim Cook crowed at an investor conference earlier this year that Apple had paid $8 billion to developers since the App Store's launch. While this may sound impressive, that equates to around $3.4 billion to Apple over five years, or about $170 million per quarter.

Sound like a lot? It's not. 

The $170 Million Rounding Error

After all, just last quarter Apple notched $54.4 billion in revenues, nearly $31 billion coming from sales of the iPhone alone. $170 million in mobile app sales? Apple makes 3X that amount in the first day of a quarter.

Not that app sales are immaterial to Apple's business. On the contrary, apps make Apple's hardware more appealing. As beautiful as Apple's devices are, few would bother to buy them if they didn't come with a massive app ecosystem.

So apps matter to Apple. It's just the app revenue that really doesn't matter. Not even with the overall mobile app market blossoming to $25 billion in 2013, according to ABI Research. That's not where the real money is.

The Mobile App Economy

At least, not for Apple. But developers? They could use that money.

Even as app sales boom, generating revenue from mobile apps is something of a bust for developers, and it's getting worse. According to a VisionMobile report, 35% of mobile app developers "live below the app poverty line," in that they don't make enough money from app development to sustain themselves. Furthermore, research firm research2guidance recently released data indicating a 27% drop in average revenues per paid app, from $26,720 in 2011 to $19,560 in 2012.

That drop in top-line revenue is already hard to swallow, but becomes even more so for iOS developers, given how pricey they are to create relative to other platforms:

Hey, Apple, Can You Spare A Dime?

As such, and given Android's continued market share domination, it may be time for Apple to further encourage developers to stick with it by dropping its App Store cut. While dropping its share from 30% to 20%, 10%, or 0% won't hurt Apple's revenue profile, it could go a long way toward keeping developers' pockets full.

Of course, Google could (and likely would) simply follow suit. After all, Google, like Apple, doesn't rely on app revenue, instead monetizing mobile through advertising.  

But by moving first, Apple would not only generate goodwill, but it would reinforce developers' preference for iOS, as a recent Appcelerator and IDC survey shows:

Apple, in other words, doesn't need to win over developers, so much as it needs to give developers a bit more incentive to keep it top platform for them. As volumes start to shrink relative to Android, letting developers keep a bigger chunk of their App Store haul could go a long way toward encouraging developer loyalty.

The PC market is tanking. Windows 8 is proving to be a disaster. Dell is hoping to go private. HP is flailing. But not every "personal computing" company is suffering. In the past few years, Apple has sold more than 500 million iOS devices - not licenses, devices - and is selling an additional 75 million iOS devices (iPhones and iPads, mostly), each quarter. At this rate it could be only a few years before the iOS installed base surpasses the global Windows installed base.

Yet Microsoft isn't expected to offer Office on iPhone or iPad until late 2014, at the earliest. What is going on at Microsoft headquarters? Corporate hubris? Insufficient resources? Or yet another strategic blunder by Steve Ballmer?

Numbers Don't Lie

The global Windows installed base is approximately 1.25 billion computers - the biggest such ecosystem in the world. But Apple's iOS is catching up.

For the world's biggest software maker, it seems crazy to ignore the giant and fast-growing iOS market. Microsoft should be aggressively monetizing iOS devices. Instead, Microsoft appears determined to look the other way. 

Steve Ballmer's obsession with Windows - growing Windows, enhancing Windows, extending Windows, promoting Windows, licensing Windows, selling Windows, profiting from Windows - may well cost Microsoft its place as the leader in consumer software. 

And then there's Android, which is is technically even larger than Apple's iOS, with an estimated 750 million devices. But Microsoft won't have Office ready for Android, either, until 2014. In Microsoft's defense, the Android market is highly fragmented, making it much harder for Ballmer (or anyone else) to mass market Android software. But combine iOS and Android and they're already larger than Windows. So what the heck is Microsoft thinking?

Why The Delay?

Apple sells some 20 million new iPads every single quarter. Microsoft Office is not available on a single one. Nor is there a version of Office for iPhone. Well-connected Microsoft expert Mary Jo Foley says that Microsoft's two-year roadmap reveals Office for iOS is still nearly two years away.

According to Foley, Microsoft's roadmap for Office goes like this:

1. Incorporate the "Blue" Metro-style design to the core Office suite - Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote. (Note: The referenced roadmap does not include Outlook.)
2. Make each Office app, e.g. Word and Excel, more touch-centric and optimize these for Windows 8 and Windows RT.
3. Update Office for Mac.
4. Update Office for Windows Phone.
5. Make a version of Office for "LSX" - large screen experience - displays.
6. Update Office for RT-based (ARM) desktops.

Which brings us to Fall 2014.

At which point, assuming everything goes to plan, Microsoft is scheduled to release a version of Office for iOS and Android. (Even then, Foley says the roadmap doesn't specifically reference the iPad is not specifically mentioned. Let's hope this is a mere oversight.)

Conspiracy Theories

It seems bizarre that Microsoft would cling to a contracting PC ecosystem and shun the massive and growing installed base of iOS and Android devices. Why would Ballmer and Microsoft wait until Fall 2014 to tap into a market that could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the company's bottom line? There are several theories:

1. Apple's 30% cut: To sell software for iPhone or iPad you must go through Apple's App Store. Apple takes a 30% commission on every sale. Microsoft is loathe to hand over this rather substantial cut. Indeed, Microsoft's quarterly corporate profit margin is about 30%. The company may be hoping to negotiate better terms.

2. Channel margins: This theory suggests that Microsoft is concerned that if it were to offer Office for iOS, its price would need to be far lower than Office sold through traditional channels. Apple's own iWork productivity suite costs less than $10 per app, while Microsoft's Office pricing is frustratingly hard to figure out - though much more than $10 per app. Lowered Office pricing for iOS and Android could foment a revolt from the makers of desktops and laptops, such as Dell or Lenovo, over the prices Microsoft charges them for pre-loaded versions of Office. Bottom line: Microsoft does not want to threaten its lucrative Office suite profits.

3. Touch is hard: Considering the lack of buyer excitement over Windows 8, which offered a radical redesign of Windows to promote touchscreen use, it may be that Microsoft is finding that building a pure-touch version of Office is more difficult than expected. 

4. Surface needs time: A theory put forward this week by Microsoft watcher Paul Thurrott suggests that by delaying the launch of Office for iOS, Microsoft is buying time to grow sales of Windows 8 and Surface tablets. 

My theory is that given the obvious internal debate over the pros and cons of Office on iPad inside Microsoft, a deal was struck: Yes, the Office team could agnostically support non-Windows platforms with the Office 2013 wave of products. But it needed to wait until Windows 8/RT was firmly established in the market. 

Good luck with that. 

Ballmer's Bad Decision

Ultimately, there is a simple, unavoidable rebuttal to each of these theories, to every possible reason for delaying Office on iOS and Android. It does not matter.

Just as the computing market shifted from mainframes to minis, from minis to desktops and from desktops to laptops, it is now being dominated by smartphones and tablets. There was a time when Apple needed Office to be on the Mac. That time is past. Now, Microsoft needs Office to be Apple's iOS and Google's Android.

And sooner would be better than later.

Note: Microsoft's media relations has said the company has "no information to share" regarding the next series of Office updates.

Steve Ballmer image by Fredric Paul.

Reports yesterday that Apple had inserted itself into the world of publishing censorship have turned out to be completely inaccurate. Apple didn't ban the sale of a comic; the comic's distributor app did — though apparently only to pre-empt the Apple ban it anticipated.

The kerfuffle centered on the banning of the sale of issue 12 of Image Comic's Saga comic series within the iOS version of ComiXology's app.

On Tuesday, the creator of the series, Brian K. Vaughan, released a statement indicating that Apple would be banning sales of Saga #12 in the popular ComiXology app and any other third-party comic app due to depicted sexual scenes.

"Unfortunately, because of two postage stamp-sized images of gay sex, Apple is banning tomorrow’s SAGA #12 from being sold through any iOS apps," Vaughan said in a statement posted at Image.

News of this move stirred a lot of observers on the Internet, including me, to lambast Apple for blocking the sale of third-party material when Apple offers the exact same comic directly within its own iBook app. This would have been the first time Apple curated independent media sold through an app, even though, according to the App Store Review Guidelines, independent books and music are not supposed to be curated:

We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical App. It can get complicated, but we have decided to not allow certain kinds of content in the App Store.

The whole thing seemed odd when I first posted about it yesterday, but the whole thing was completely wrong, and my story incorrect: it turns out Apple had absolutely nothing to do with blocking Saga #12… it was all on ComiXology.

"As a partner of Apple, we have an obligation to respect its policies for apps and the books offered in apps. Based on our understanding of those policies, we believed that Saga #12 could not be made available in our app, and so we did not release it today," ComiXology CEO David Steinberger blogged yesterday afternoon.

"Given this, it should be clear that Apple did not reject Saga #12," he emphasized.

The comic, which anyone could still purchase on ComiXology's web site and then sync to an iOS device, was restored to the in-app catalog yesterday.

ComiXology's move to preemptively block the sale was their way of anticipating a decision from Apple that would have done the same thing later. But Apple, ComiXology learned, had no intention of censoring the comic issue.

Because the Saga series is intended for mature readers and has depicted graphic scenes of violence and sex before, many speculated that ComiXology (and before, inaccurately, Apple) has an issue with the portrayal of same-sex activities in two panels of Saga #12. This is a charge Steinberger denies.

"We did not interpret the content in question as involving any particular sexual orientation, and frankly that would have been a completely irrelevant consideration under any circumstance," Steinberger wrote.

It is still not entirely clear what it was about Saga #12 that made it stand out as a potential problem, but one thing is clear: content distributors like ComiXology and Apple definitely need to get their acts together.

ComiXology can be accused of having an overabundance of caution, but there was something in the Apple policies that faked them out. Perhaps Apple, which has not publicly commented on this matter, could come out with clearer policies on content, if that is indeed the problem.

Hopefully, the policy will continue to be what it seems: that for all of the app content that Apple does curate, they have to date not curated content that's independent of apps.

This can be confusing, because it means that publishers like Playboy will have to keep the naughty stuff to itself within its own Newsstand app, but third-party movies, books and music with explicit material can still be sold through apps, including Apple's.

For this particular incident, Apple is off the hook. But somewhere there was a miscommunication, which needs to be fixed.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock

When Twitter started, it was just a service where you could post status messages on the Web via text message. It would soon take on a life of its own. Developers saw the value that Twitter could bring and started developing apps, clients and revenue models. Twitter, without really meaning to, had become a platform. 

That platform, as Twitter generally saw it, was a threat to Twitter itself. In the past several years, Twitter has restricted access to its APIs, cut off some developer shops entirely and consolidated control of the platform to its own headquarters. The developer community was outraged.

Twitter may have had a method to its madness. Yesterday, Twitter gave birth to “Cards” – a way for developers and media to connect their apps, media, products, photos, videos and galleries to Tweets. Cards is kind of a reverse method for Twitter to re-open its platform to developers and media. Consider it Twitter’s way of giving back to the developers it once spurned.

What Are Twitter Cards?

Twitter is getting meta. Metadata, that is. 

Essentially, Cards is all about metadata. If you are unfamiliar with the term, metadata is data that describes other kinds of data. For instance, where did a Tweet come from (an app, publication, button)? What location did it come from and what time of day? What kind of media is attached to it? Twitter has long kept track of this data and allowed developers to use some of it. Most users on Twitter have little idea that one Tweet can generate more than a dozen different data points.

Twitter is now taking some of that data and making it forward facing to the public. Developers can access this data by choosing the type of Card they want (there are six kinds), inserting the proper meta tags and validating the content through Twitter. By doing that, Cards will be able to connect straight from Twitter to a variety of media, including apps. Or products. Twitter calls this process of “deep linking.”

What does that mean though? “Twitter now directly links to my app?” Really, it means exactly what it says. 

Twitter card as seen on Twitter.com

Let’s take the example of mobile social network Path. I, the user, post a picture to Path and tweet it from the Path app for Android or iOS. You, my follower, see that photo and open the tweet from on the Web, mobile Web, iOS or Android. 

Since Path has set up Cards, on the bottom of you the tweet you will see “Get the Path app.” Click on that and Twitter will send you straight to Path on your device. If you don’t have Path installed, you will be directed to sign up for the service.

Click the link, you are sent to Path on the Web. Same would work for Path mobile app.

For web sites, it is similar. Say I post one of my articles to Twitter (which I do, often). The Card will give a preview of my article and on the bottom it will say “View on ReadWrite.” That button will take you to the ReadWrite web site on whatever device you are using. We do not have a dedicated app for Android or iOS anymore, but if we did we could direct you there, too.

There are six kinds of Cards that you can now create. Per Twitter’s own description:

• Summary Card: Default card, including a title, description, thumbnail and Twitter account attribution
• Photo Card: A Tweet sized photo card
• Gallery Card: A Tweet card geared toward highlighting a collection of photos
• App Card: A Tweet card for providing a profile of an application
• Player Card: A Tweet sized video/audio/media player card
• Product Card: A Tweet card to better represent product content

What Is New?

The concept of Cards is not actually new at Twitter. Showing the preview of photos, articles and web sites from a link has been available since the middle of 2012. What is new are the expansion of the types of cards as well as the update to the Android, iOS and mobile web apps.

This is where it gets interesting.

Twitter has created the capability to send users all over the Internet. We are not just talking about links anymore. We are talking native apps, mobile web sites, or various types of media that can either stand alone or live within those apps. Twitter has basically just created a platform that can act as a directional compass for the Internet. One word for that is “platform.”

Platform is a very developer-centric term. When it comes to the Web and mobile apps, it more or less means “something that can be built on top of.” For Twitter, Cards has another type of connotation for its users:

Portal.

Portal 2.0

Portal has become something of a nasty word on the Web over the past several years. When we think portal, we think of the old AOL homepage or Yahoo or even iGoogle (which Google will kill on Nov. 1, 2013). Twitter Cards are like Portal 2.0, in a similar manner that Facebook has become. Portal 2.0 is inherently social and does not just send you to other Web content the way the original portals did. Portal 2.0 can send you a variety of types of media, like the app or the product page. 

For instance, an enterprising company could use Cards to link to a product, like a pair of sunglasses. You could then purchase those new sunglasses from the site. Twitter could even be the arbiter of the transaction by using your account as authentication, tied to a credit card or other payment service. 

So, Cards as an example of Portal 2.0 are social, mobile, directional, built as a platform and, perhaps, transactional.

Yesterday, Apple made up for one of its biggest mobile missteps yet. No, I'm not talking about Maps (it's still working on that). The company pushed out an update to its native Podcasts app for iOS, overhauling the interface and tacking on impressive new features. It's still not the best way to manage podcasts on iOS, but it's a big step up. 

When Apple broke Podcasts out from its native Music (formerly "iPod") app last year, the end product landed in the App Store with a resounding thud. The app, which BuzzFeed called "the worst app it's ever made," garnered Apple some incredibly negative user reviews. Topping off a lackluster user experience and buggy performance was a dose of the unnecessarily skeuomorphic design even Apple devotees love to deride and that Jony Ive is expected to axe. 

With version 1.2, Podcasts loses the cheesy reel-to-reel tape graphic, gets a fresh design and borrows features from of the best audio consumption apps out there. For example, the new "Stations" feature feels reminiscent of Stitcher Radio's smart stations, although with less algorithmic intelligence behind it. 

The Alternatives Are Still Better

It's a very solid and badly needed update. Personally, I don't find it compelling enough to change my existing mobile audio consumption regimen, which includes Stitcher, Instacast and NPR's excellent mobile apps. Instacast in particular is a great app for for managing and listening to podcasts. PodCruncher, PocketCasts and Downcast are all very popular as well. 

Stitcher Radio has much the same content as the apps mentioned above, but it's way better at content discovery. Its "smart radio" approach offers more of a "lean back" experience, which is ideal for this of us who want to listen to podcasts in the car without careening off the road to our untimely and tragic demise. 

Apple would be wise to mimic the best of these apps even more than it already has. I've long said that whoever figures out a way to implement an Instapaper "listen later" button would pretty much win the Internet audio game in my book. 

Remember when podcasts were supposed to be the future of media consumption? Things didn't quite pan out the way they felt poised to in 2005, but it's an important part of audio content and the future of what we once called radio. How popular are they? Both This American Life and WTF With Marc Maron, two of the most popular podcasts, each see hundreds of thousands of downloads per episode. That's a pretty good showing, but it doesn't begin to compare to terrestrial radio or Internet services with radio-like qualities such as Pandora and SoundCloud. 

Podcasts might not be a radio-killer, but they certainly complement their analog predecessor in a very significant way. Apple didn't invent podcasting, but its technology helped fuel the medium's early innovations and it plays an important role in the history of podcasting.  It makes sense for Apple to own this space. They don't. But with Podcasts 1.2, they're certainly getting there. 

Apple has yanked the controversial game Sweatshop HD from its App Store -- a move rife with irony given Apple's own long association with questionable labor practices in China.

Apple actually pulled Sweatshop last month, although the news just broke Thursday on the game site Polygon. The game put players in a managerial position at an expanding offshore clothing factory. Among other things, it offers the option to employ cheap child labor as everything from fires, longer work hours, and mutilating injuries force players to make increasingly dark decisions to meet the bottom line. 

Simon Parkin, head of the game's studio Littleloud, told Polygon the title was pulled because Apple was "uncomfortable selling a game based around the theme of running a sweatshop." The game was originally released for browsers in 2011 and saw an iOS release last year. 

This Is Not The Exploitation You Think It Is

But Sweatshop wasn't designed to make a quick buck off a cartoony rendition of offshore manufacturing and child exploitation. Littleloud said it got fact-checking input from Labour Behind The Label, a UK-based charity that raises awareness about who manufacturers many Western branded products and where.

Sweatshop was also featured by Games For Change, a New York-based nonprofit that aims "to leverage entertainment and engagement for social good." On its Web site, Littleloud says it set out to make a game that "challenged young people to think about the origin of the clothes we buy." Its tag line for the game: "Explore the high cost of cheap fashion."

Despite all that, Apple chickened out. It's a telling move, mainly because Apple has long been fighting allegations of sitting idly by while its many Chinese manufactures employ a swath of unfair labor practices to meet the world's demand for iPhones and iPads. Principally among that group is Foxconn, who just last fall admitted to using child labor with workers as young as 14, and has been routinely plagued by its high suicide rate and massive riots due to the company's long work hours and robotic lifestyle regiment it imposes on its workers. 

Playing Sweatshop: A Lesson In Cruelty

As I fired up the in-browser version of the game for the first time, I was met with a lengthy and darkly comic introduction that takes you from a store selling a Nike-esque shoe in high demand across the loading docks, delivery trucks, and ocean-crossing steam liners that move it from the sweatshop it was produced in. This is all to the soundtrack of unbelievably catchy arcade techno music that starkly contrasts with what you're seeing on screen. 

The game starts small, putting you in charge of one child laborer and $100 to hire more workers. Sweatshop is an optimization strategy game, meaning you're given a top-down view of the factory and must accomplish a task as fast as possible, and with as few errors as you can manage, through furious mouse clicks and intense monitoring of the game's multiple working parts, which in this game happen to be fearful children and exhausted adults. 

The children are scared mostly because of the cruel and heartless head manager, a stocky, mustached man in a shirt and tie that continuously calls his workers "lazybones" and complains about having to provide them with water. As the conveyor belt pulls in material to make things like hats and shirts, you have to make sure each item is completed before it gets to the end of the belt or it counts as a failed item. If you rack up a certain number of failed items - like I did numerous times while trying to keep my workers hydrated and simultaneously maximizing my speed - you lose the contract and have to restart the level.

Sweatshop holds nothing back when it comes to making you reflect on your decisions, and ultimately begin to marginalize every worker until you begin to think of them as just another cog in the big manufacturing machine. The end of each level gives you a stat rundown, boosting your overall score for the level with bonuses for quality, time and the amount of cash used (which you can try to control by firing workers as they become less useful or by hiring more children). You're also given a button at the bottom to check your CV, which displays the trophies you've earned for completing certain in-game milestones like refreshing your first tired worker. 

While it haphazardly treats themes of child labor and deplorable working conditions in a satirically upbeat manner, Sweatshop also spends a good chunk of time addressing the player directly in a serious manner. At the end of each level, the game's representative child laborer character offers a real sweatshop fact.

That same character engages in one-on-one conversation with you at the beginning of each level to let you know what makes for more manageable conditions, like paying for more water and keeping the conveyer on slow. The child even offers his personal story -- for instance, how he wishes he could attend school but instead must work to support his family.  

Why Apple Should Allow Socially Conscious Games

Many may note the irony at play in Apple banning a game over its controversial, child-labor-related content following Foxconn's breaking of labor laws last year. Apple deserves some credit it acknowledging the problems of outsourced manufacturing; it launched an investigation last year into Foxconn's labor practices (though only after the New York Times published some damning investigative reports).

But by banning Sweatshop — a game that, while unorthodox in its message delivery, does actively try to make smartphone users think about the welfare of the workers behind the things they wear and the devices they use — Apple has again retreated from the debate. Not exactly what you'd normally expect from a company that once exhorted people to "think different."

Approving and promoting a game like Sweatshop might seem risky from a traditional PR perspective, but it would highlight Apple's willingness to allow others transparent discussion of labor conditions on its platform. It would open up debate, and might even win the company some kudos among critics who have blasted Apple for its lackluster response and feeble efforts to improve working conditions at its overseas contractors.

At the moment, though, it seems Apple's App Store nannies are too "uncomfortable" to take that chance.

How Alterna-Apple Could Redress The Problem

Imagine for a moment we lived in an alternative universe, one in which Apple executives really wanted to improve working conditions in iProduct factories. That's exactly the world conjured up in a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-liberalish think tank, which argues that Apple could, and should, deploy its enormous cash reserves to pay higher wages to the Chinese workers who assemble its iPhones and iPads. (And, for good measure, to its Apple Store retail workers as well.)

"Almost entirely absent from the discussion has been whether those reserves should also be used to provide fairer compensation to the workers making its products abroad or selling its products here," writes report author Isaac Shapiro.

Shapiro argues that Apple could take several simple steps to improve thousands of lives — for instance, by switching to a livable wage standard, providing retroactive compensation to workers for past labor rights violations, and to keep working to lower the 60 hour work weeks at many of its contractor factories.

Similarly, the EPI report calls for Apple to fulfill its March 2012 promise to compensate workers for all of their past unpaid hours. "Apple has since gone silent on this promise, and may be walking away from it, even though the promise is a response to illegal and unjust work practices, and could be fulfilled using just a tiny fraction of Apple’s massive reserve," Shapiro writes. 

These are, generally speaking, terrific suggestions for Apple. But if the iPhone maker doesn't even have the cojones to allow a social advocacy game on its App Store, I sure wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to put some muscle behind the real-world issues that game addresses in virtual form.

Apple is beefing up its security for users of its iTunes, App Store and iBookstore consumers. Starting today, Apple is offering two-step verification for Apple ID, the authentication mechanism it uses for customers using iPhone, iPad and Mac computers.

The move is long overdue for Apple. Two-step verification is a security feature that requires users to verify their identity in more than one way. Previously, if you bought an app in the App Store, Apple would only ask you for your password. That's a one-step verification. Two-step verification adds another hurdle -- asking users to swipe a card, for instance, or to enter a PIN texted to their phone. The idea is that each additional factor used to authenticate a customer makes it that much harder for spammers and crooks to log in as someone they're not.

Apple is enabling two-step verification as an "optional security feature" for Apple ID. To set it up, you must register one or more trusted devices -- say, your smartphone (though technically any device you control that can receive 4-digit verification codes via SMS text or the “Find My iPhone” feature of iOS will do). Apple will also send users a 14 character “Recovery Code” you can print out and save as a way of getting back into your account should you lose your smartphone or forget your password.

The Importance Of Two-Step Authentication

Many companies use multi-factor authentication. Google has offered two-step authentication to all users for more than two years. Facebook also offers it. 

The biggest cautionary tale about Apple security and two-step authentication recently is that of technology reporter Mat Honan. Honan, now a senior writer at Wired, had many of his important accounts hacked, including his Twitter, Google and Apple ID. The hackers, who Honan said were after his three letter @mat Twitter account, were able to remotely erase his iPhone, iPad and MacBook after gaining access to his Apple account. 

Apple, which lacked two-factor authentication at the time, more or less allowed the hackers into Honan’s accounts after they had tracked some personal information about him through his Amazon account. If Apple ID had two-factor authentication at the time, the malicious attack might well have stopped dead when trying to dive into Honan’s Apple accounts.

How To Set Up Two-Factor Authentication

Go to Apple’s support page here and follow the directions. It's fairly simple. First, you want to sign in to your account with “Manage your Apple ID.” Then click on “Password and Security.” Click on “Two-Step Verification” and follow the onscreen instructions.

Many smartphone users are clueless on how much access their unique IDs allow them. Many people, such as Honan, have most of their gadget and social accounts tied through Apple ID or like services. To stay safe, best to make sure that:

• your passwords are unique;
• your accounts aren't tied together through a single service (so that if it gets hacked, they all do);
• you use two-step authentication whenever possible.

Lead image via Flickr user thisisanicephoto, CC 2.0

Today is the big launch of Samsung's flagship Galaxy S4 smartphone — and Apple has clearly taken notice. Earlier this week, Apple released two new iPhone commercials, which were well-crafted if boring. It is unlikely the timing of these new ads was coincidental.

Yesterday, Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller gave a rare interview to the Wall Street Journal. Schiller was clearly on the attack.

Schiller insisted that surveys reveal that iPhone users are more "satisfied" with their device than Android users. Schiller mentioned that Android is plagued by fragmentation and that Android users are often running outdated versions of the operating system. 

Schiller wasn't finished: 

Android is often given as a free replacement for a feature phone and the experience isn't as good as an iPhone.

While Apple's advertising focuses almost exclusively on its own product, Schiller spent much of his time with the Wall Street Journal knocking Android.

When you take an Android device out of the box, you have to sign up to nine accounts with different vendors to get the experience iOS comes with. They don't work seamlessly together.

While Schiller mostly talked Android, Samsung was clearly on his mind. For example, he took a swipe at Samsung and its larger-sized Galaxy displays, suggesting that the bigger screen is necessary to mask a larger battery with which to compete with the iPhone 5's battery life.

Schiller even disputed the recent smartphone market share numbers, touted the claim that Android users are more likely to switch to iPhone, and stated:

I'm not sure that the estimates and the modeling accurately gives an accurate picture of it all.

There is good reason for Schiller to be concerned, at least with Samsung, if not Android. According to the most recent comScore figures, Apple has a 38% share of the US smartphone market. Samsung is second, with 21%. But according to mobile analyst, Tomi Ahonen, Samsung is the clear global smartphone winner — having sold 215 million devices in 2012, compared to Apple's 136 million.

The disparity could grow throughout the year. Samsung has recently stated that its flagship Galaxy line has sold over 100 million units since its May 2010 launch and that it expects to sell over 300 million smartphones in 2013.

Another point of concern for Apple: Samsung has been outspending Apple on advertising. Samsung spent $401 million just in the U.S. last year to promote its smartphones. Apple spent $333 million. Just as important, Samsung's advertising has been more impactful. As ReadWrite noted this week, Samsung's commercials "are the kinds of ads that strike a chord." 

Apple remains the leader, however, where it may matter most: profits. As we noted last week, "Samsung is winning every way but one" against Apple. That one way, of course, is profits. Nonetheless, Apple clearly is watching Samsung carefully — and isn't above having the likes of Schiller toss a brushback pitch from time to time.

It's déjà vu all over again in Apple Land.

Steve Jobs took the stage in 2010 to trumpet the iPhone's dominance in the smartphone market. A few short months later, that dominance was gone. In 2011, with Android consuming Apple's market share, Jobs pilloried Android for its anemic market share, boasting 90% market share for the iPad. He also sardonically labeled 2011 the "year of the copycats," calling out Samsung and everyone else that wasn't Apple.

Two years later, the copycats have basically won, according to a new forecast from IDC:

Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Tablet Tracker, March 2013

It turns out that those smaller, cheaper tablets that Jobs derided as "D.O.A." are actually alive and well -- and this year should account for one of every two tablets shipped.

None of which is to denigrate Apple, which makes the device upon which I'm typing this post. Rather, it is to echo Jay Yarow in suggesting that Steve Jobs' reality distortion field is needed more than ever. With a stock price that has plummeted off its peak and real questions being raised about Apple's future, Apple needs a Jobs.

Or maybe it just needs to think different.

For example, Apple needs to figure out how to be relevant outside North America and Western Europe, where people can't afford to pay a premium for iPads and iPhones. As Asymco analyst Horace Dediu reveals, 99.4% of Android's growth is outside the U.S., with that growth 150 times faster than U.S. Android growth:

Source: comScore, Google, Asymco (2013)

Apple needs to answer this global demand for devices, and keeping with a high-price, high-margin strategy isn't the right answer.

However much Apple or its fans point to Apple's profits, Samsung, in particular, is catching up. Profit share follows market share, particularly when competitors like Samsung can not only build cheap Android devices but also high-end Android devices that are equal to or better than Apple's devices. Android is already eating into Apple's profit margins, pushing it to release smaller, cheaper devices that generate smaller profits.

So maybe Apple is thinking different. But it needs to accelerate this. And not just in the U.S., which is one of the few markets where users can get the lower-end Apple devices (e.g., iPhone 4S) heavily subsidized.

John Paul Titlow argues that Apple needs to go for broke with iOS 7. Given the innovation we're seeing from Google with things like Google Now, that's a great suggestion, but a jump in iOS innovation may merely be table stakes.

(See Microsoft Is Basically Screwed In The Tablet Sector, IDC Says.)

Apple needs to play the market share game. Wholly fixating on profit margins has kept it from aggressively targeting the global market where most of the growth is, now that the Western world is largely saturated with smartphones and, increasingly, tablets. Could Apple build lower-end devices that manage to maintain Apple's polish and design flair? Of course it could.

The only thing holding Apple back is an unwillingness to think different.