As the world goes mobile, businesses around the world are rushing to build app they hope will take center stage on your smartphone home screen. Most are not worth the bother. This seems especially true for apps from non-tech companies, too many of which seem to be poorly designed attempts to create intrusive commercials.

But not every app from non-tech companies fit that description. It turns out that you don't have to be an Amazon or a Google to deliver a great app experience. 

Each of the six apps profiled below fully delivers on the company's core business - making me want to remain (or become) a customer. Beyond that, they are all surprisingly intuitive and helpful. The key characteristic they share? An overriding concern for the user: 

1. CVS Pharmacy: Primary Needs

The CVS app makes great use of multiple smartphone functions. You can easily find a nearby store, use digital coupons to save money, then collect points for additional savings - all within the app.

Scan your prescription's barcode with your smartphone camera to have your medications refilled. If you want a picture from your smartphone's camera printed out, that's easy, too.

The CVS app is simple to use and packed with helpful customer-facing features. If my parents used a smartphone, I would get them this app. The iPhone version of the app has 4.5 stars and nearly 16,000 reviews. 

[iPhone] [Android]

2. In-N-Out Burger: Loyal Following

Not being from California, I am at a loss to explain the cult-like popularity of this burger chain. But, the app is as as good as a Double-Double. Basic, well-made, and exactly what the user wants.

The In-N-Out app offers turn-by-turn navigation to the nearest In-N-Out outlet. Users can store their gift points in the app. For the faithful, the app includes a full menu (including the not-so-secret menu; Animal Style anyone?), downloadable content and the "history of..." In-N-Out. Well done.

[iPhone] [Android]

3. Chase: Personal Service

Perhaps nobody likes dealing with their bank. Though I think this app is great, with more than 71,000 reviews in iTunes alone, it scores only a 3.5 rating. Frankly, I wish my regular bank's app was this good. 

In fact, for what this app allows me to do, and for how easy it is to operate, it not only outdoes other bank apps, it's far more handy than many mainstream tech apps.With the Chase Mobile app, you can scan and deposit checks into your account. It's easy to set automated text alerts - such as for being notified via SMS when you have low balance. You can pay bills through the app, get a complete overview of all your Chase accounts, transfer money, review your transaction history, find a nearby ATM, click-to-call a Chase representative - all very easily, in my opinion.

[iPhone] [Android] 

4. MLB.com: Content-Rich

If you're not a baseball fan you may not care about the MLB's "At Bat" app. This is wrong.

At Bat app's ease of use, it's incredibly dense feature set, and its simple, well-crafted design offering various additional levels of content, all billed through the app, are a thing of beauty. App developers for all content-rich sites should study At Bat.

With this app, users get the latest scores, the latest news, can track their home team, and favorite players. Set notifications for team and players - and know instantly if your favorite pitcher is chasing a no-hitter, then tune-in.  

Want more than animated game graphics? For very reasonable fees, At Bat offers options to listen to any game (home and away feeds). Pay a bit more and you can watch nearly any game, live. Games are also archived and condensed for later viewing. 

At Bat is simple to use, understands its fan base - and their varying levels of fanaticism - and offers greater content depth for each level of user. I suggest every sports league in the world just copy MLB.com's At Bat app. 

[iPhone] [Android] 

5. Grainger: Servicing Core Customers

Grainger sells all manner of industrial supplies, power tools and equipment for builders and contractors. It's been in business since 1927 - but the company obviously understands the importance of technology to support its mission, as its app is great. 

Looking for a highly specific product among thousands of options? Type it or speak it into the search box. You can have the product shipped to you or a nearby store, and track its progress in real-time. You can even get product reviews from other contractors. 

Your shopping cart and data are synched across your computer and smartphone. That's important for contractors who may need to access Grainger from a job site or back at the office. Plus you click-to-call for help, tap for the nearest location,and share purchase/needs lists with co-workers. This app knows what the company's customers need and works hard to fulfill them.

[iPhone] [Android] 

6. Lululemon: A Sense Of Community

Lululemon sells clothes and accessories, primarily for yoga, primarily for women. Its app, Om Finder, is not a shopping app, however. Instead, it focuses on helping users find the nearest and/or best yoga studio, yoga teacher or yoga class. 

The Om Finder app is simple and purposeful. It's all about helping the customer be their best at the thing Lululemon's clothing is best suited for.Users can share tips about a facility or teacher, connect with others through the app and maintain a schedule of their yoga sessions.

Sure, it's not all altruism. Many people who practice yoga are likely to purchase (still more) clothing from Lululemon. This is a smart way for the company to support its business, help its customers and foster a sense of community, all with a single, simple app. Other businesses - not just retailers - should follow Lululemon's lead.

[iPhone only] 

Great Apps Are Everywhere

The shelf life of most apps is not long. The apps listed above, however, all make my life easier, better, happier or more productive - without annoying me, intruding upon my personal space or bombarding me with junk.  

While very different, all these apps offer important lessons in how companies of all types can use mobile applications to please customers, extend their mission and leverage the power of community.

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.

The next time you're thinking about buying a new smartphone, there's one more spec you might want to consider. If the FBI or the IRS wants to read your texts, will Apple hand them over? Would it require the feds to get a warrant first? And would it even bother to let you know that federal agents made the request in the first place?

If you're looking at a shiny new iPhone, the answers are not comforting. 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's latest digital privacy report, Who's Got Your Back?, awards Apple its secondthe Electronic Frontier Foundation gives Apple a paltry one out of six stars. While Apple got credit for supporting efforts to defend users by modernizing electronic privacy laws, its apparent willingness to hand over your personal information to the government without a warrant and its failure to tell its users how it handles such requests put it in the dock.

Worse Than Comcast: Apple's Privacy Black Box

Apple came off much, much worse than most of its peers — here defined as major non-ISP mobile-computing players. Apple fared worse than Amazon (two stars), Facebook (three), Microsoft (four) and Google (five). Even Comcast, the cable conglomerate consumers love to hate, scored one star higher than Apple. 

The EFF chides Apple for not publishing a transparency report as companies like Google and Twitter do. Without that, users have no idea what kinds of information the government asks for, because Apple won't tell them, nor does it let them know what its guidelines are for dealing with law enforcement data requests. 

(See also: EFF: Twitter Scores, Verizon Fails At Protecting User Privacy)

Apple certainly wasn't the worst-ranked company overall. The major telcos and ISPs almost always get raked over coals on privacy. In this report, Verizon got no stars, while AT&T racked up a grand total of one. MySpace also got no stars and Yahoo only got one. Amazon's showing is also pretty disappointing, especially considering its vast storehouse of consumer-purchase data and its rumored plans to enter the smartphone market. 

But Apple dominates mobile computing in a way few other companies do. And as the proprietor of a mobile operating system that runs on more than half a billion devices, Apple has its hands on a lot of data. Its approach to privacy matters to an awful lot of people — and its lousy performance is a big deal considering how deeply its devices are embedded into our lives.

That integration is only getting deeper as Apple prototypes wearable devices and dreams up more screens to dominate. 

Not Just A Computer Company Anymore 

It's not all together shocking that Apple has some catching up to do in the privacy realm. Until recently, it didn't deal with all that much information about its customers. For most of its history, the company was called Apple Computer, because that's what it sold: computers.

In the early days, the only way for the government to snoop through your MacIntosh was to get a warrant to search your apartment. Today's Apple's computers are smaller, constantly connected to the Internet and, increasingly reliant on iCloud to sync and share data across devices.

Whereas Google has been handling (and profiting from) user data since day one, Apple is only just getting started. If you use iCloud, its servers house your calendars, email, photos, notes and any other data you choose to feed it. If you're using iOS 5 or higher, you're also entrusting Apple with whatever percentage of your personal text messages go through its iMessage protocol.

To its credit, Apple built iMessage using end-to-end encryption that makes its harder for others to snoop on the contents of messages. Of course, if the FBI — or the local cops — really want to know what you're iMessaging back and forth, they can go directly to Apple, with or without a warrant. 

Of course, if the texts in question aren't iMessages, the authorities could just do what they've always done: Ask the mobile data provider to see them. Such requests have seen a dramatic uptick in recent years, and the major ISPs don't approach them with the same level of transparency that a company like Twitter or Sonic.net would. 

Why Consumers Should Care

Apple has never been lauded for having a forward-thinking and open approach to user privacy issues. That hasn't stopped millions of people from trying to predict the company's next gadget and then eagerly standing in line to purchase it. 

Part of that may have to do with awareness. Digital privacy reports excite a certain breed of data nerd (OK, guilty as charged), but they don't approach the media attention lavished on Apple product announcements. Nor is the EFF's chart plastered all over billboards, bus stops and television sets. 

Even for those of you who already knew that Apple doesn't treat your privacy with kid gloves, the risk of the government peeking into law-abiding texts and calendars is too remote to worry about. To some, this is just a side effect of the hyper-connected, digitally-immersed society we're becoming. Even if they don't particularly like it, it's just not their battle to fight. 

Trouble is, that sort of complacency puts no pressure on Apple to get more proactive about keeping your digital life safe from prying eyes.

If you fall in this category, you might still luck out, of course. Even if there's some major privacy gaffe down the line, it might not affect you. And if you're fortunate, IRS agents aren't currently reading your Apple email or iMessages, looking for possible evidence of tax evasion.

But given Apple's current practices in this regard, if they are, you'd never know. Maybe ignorance really is bliss.

The apps that users have come to love (or hate) since the iPhone and its mobile operating system – iOS – first hit the market could be about to look very different: No more 3D cartoonish caricatures of bookshelves or billiard tables, Apple apps are reportedly going “flat.” Perhaps just as important, the new design could dictate when the next iPhone actually hits stores.

According to a report from Bloomberg, Apple’s lead designer, Sir Jonathan Ive, is completely revamping the look and feel of iOS. Ive had previously been the long-time head of hardware design at Apple (responsible for the physical look and feel of iMacs, iPods, iPads and the iPhone) but was elevated in 2012 when CEO Tim Cook let go Scott Forstall, the previous lead designer of iOS. Ive now controls the look and feel of just about every aspect of the iPhone.

With that change comes the end of skeuomorphism, the designconcept where developers make apps look like the physical object they represent. In iOS, this can be seen in the bookshelves of the Newsstand app or the paper notebook look of the Notes app.

Apple moving away from skeuomorphism is not news. The New York Times reported the move in November of last year, and the topic has been at the top of designers' minds for months. On Wednesday, Bloomberg confirmed that Ive and his cohorts are moving toward a flat design that does not digitally recreate physical objects with 3D renderings.

What is news is that Ive’s team have apparently fallen behind in finalizing the new designs that are supposed to be ready for iOS when Apple unveils it at its World Wide Developers Conference, slated for June 10-14 in San Francisco. According to the Bloomberg report, the design concepts were due in February but are running a month late. The Apple team is working under intense pressure to get the new look down before the next iPhone ships, likely in September or October of this year. 

See Also:

• Why Apple Really, Really Needs To Kill It With iOS 7
• Forget Skeuomorphism: The (Digital) World Is Getting Flatter
• Will Apple's New Design Approach Kill The Luster Steve Jobs Loved?
• Tim Cook Cleans House At Apple - Scott Forstall Is Out

Motivations For Flat Design

The flat design concept is in vogue with mobile designers because it provides a cleaner, crisper way to present information and easy interactive elements. Flat design works better on mobile screens, where inset text and spacing, among other issues, are concerns for developers. Microsoft’s Windows 8 and Windows Phone are prime examples of flat design.

A couple factors no doubt motivate Ive’s decision to transition iOS design:

• Apple is in desperate need of dramatic changes to make iOS 7 fresh and new for consumers. The basic digital design of iOS hasn't changed since the first iPhone was launched in 2007.
• Flat design is more conducive to high-resolution screens. The original iPhone had a resolution of 163 pixels per inch (ppi) on its 3.5-inch screen. The iPhone 5 has 326 ppi on a 4-inch screen. Competitive models like the Samsung Galaxy S4 (441 ppi) and HTC One (469 ppi) boast even higher resolutions that Apple will likely try to match or best with its newest iPhone. 

According to reports, the disagreement that led to Forstall's exit from Apple centered around skeumorphism vs. flat design. Now that Ive is in control of both hardware and software, he is going to bring everything into alignment with his own vision. 

Are you looking forward to a different design for your iPhone apps? Or are you happy with how your iPhone currently looks? Let us know in the comments. 

Windows Phone got some good news and some bad news today from the consumer research firm Kantar. The bad: Microsoft's smartphone OS accounted for a meager 5.6% of all U.S. smartphone sales in the first quarter. The comparable number for Android was 49%; for iOS, 44%.

The good: Windows Phone's showing was a significant improvement, up a full 1.9 percentage points over a year earlier. By contrast, Blackberry — which is rolling out its new operating system, BlackBerry 10 — saw its U.S. share crater in the quarter to less than 1% from 3.7% a year ago. 

In a statement, Kantar analyst Mary-Ann Paralto noted that Windows Phone is "now at its highest sales share figure" ever in the U.S. 

Possibly in anticipation of the good news, Microsoft has just released a new Windows Phone commercial. It doesn't show off the platform nor offer any reason why Windows Phone is a better choice than its rivals. Rather, it takes a page from Samsung and mocks both iPhone and Android users.

When you're far behind in the market, casting yourself as a viable alternative to the market leaders — while simultaneously mocking said leaders — can be a winning strategy. Or, you know, it can smack of desperation.

In this case, however, the ad is so over-the-top, and Microsoft appears to be having so much fun making fun of iPhone and Android users, that it works. Android users are silly hipsters. iPhone users are old. Siri doesn't work. Samsung devices are ridiculously large.

Will the ad help Microsoft sell more Windows Phone phones? Doubtful.

The problem is that the ad is focused on the wrong audience: current iPhone and Android users. Even at the end, Microsoft says, "don't fight, switch." Only, those existing users aren't Microsoft's logical target. Microsoft needs to target folks who haven't yet chosen a side — that is, owners of non-smartphones (what the industry, for its own unfathomable reasons, calls "feature phones"). The Kantar survey noted as much (emphasis added): 

Windows strength appears to be the ability to attract first time smartphone buyers, upgrading from a featurephone. Of those who changed their phone over the last year to a Windows smartphone, 52% had previously owned a featurephone.  

Building market share based on getting iPhone and Android users to switch is likely not a winning strategy, at least not yet. An analysis of U.S. smartphone owners, for example, found that 91% of current iPhone owners planned to stay with the platform — and the majority of those who were likely to switch planned to switch to Android. A smaller, though still sizable 76% of Android users planned to stay with the platform. Most of those likely to switch intend to get an iPhone, not Windows Phone.

But there's no reason to expect the rational from Microsoft — not when it's so far behind. With the new mocking ad, and the large gap between Windows Phone and leaders iPhone and Android, expect Microsoft's marketing to become even more aggressive and in-your-face.

Earlier this year, founder Bill Gates publicly stated he was not pleased with Microsoft's mobile device sales and he characterized the company's smartphone strategy as a "mistake." That no doubt lit a fire under Steve Ballmer and company. Who knows, maybe the scenes inside Microsoft's Redmond headquarters are as acrimonious as those in its newest commercial. 

Along with the U.S., Kantar tracks smartphone sales data in 9 countries, including China, Australia, Japan, France and Great Britain. Now that Symbian has been effectively deprecated, Windows Phone appears set to take third place — a very distant third place — in all of them, with the possible exception of Japan.  

Lead image from Windows Phone video

Playing Snap, Snap, Go, a new iPhone-only app, is kind of like eating at a fast food restaurant. It's wonderful - at first. But the fun fades much too quickly. And then you're consumed with a sense of regret and shame because even though you just had sort of a pleasurable experience, you know it can't possibly be good for you.

If Snap, Snap, Go - which describes itself as "a picture game for awful people" - turns out to be as popular as fast food, it may mark the end of civilization's progress. Because that would mean smartphones - the most advanced personal computing and communications devices ever created - are really all about making us giggle. Which certainly isn't "awful," but still a vast comedown from the awesome, life-changing uses promised for our amazing mobile computers.

Snap Battle

Tellingly, Snap, Snap, Go's positioning isn't quite right. It's really for "awful people," it's for the awful person in all of us. 

Here's how it works: After downloading the app, you sign in using your Facebook account. For beginners, the game presents a series of meme-like questions, such as: "Eat Just One," and asks you to vote for which of the of two pictures it shows you best corresponds to the question. Your choices might be a bowl of jelly beans versus chili cheese fries, for example. 

There are also plenty of "awful" battles. Such as: "I lie to get __," "Donald Trump could wear it as a toupee," or "Ron Jeremy owns 10 of these." These are distressingly hard to resist. 

The real "fun" begins when you challenge your Facebook friends - or random opponents. (None of my friends use the app, which I'm sure means something, so I challenged random people.) Again, the app presents you with a series of meme-like questions. For example, "Why is my phone sticky?" (Yes, I know.) You then snap and post a picture that you think best answers the question - as do your opponents. If you don't have an, er, provocative picture of your own, the game lets you cheat and grab a photo from Flickr. Then others get to vote on whose photo they like best. (That's where the pictures come from in the beginner's example above.)

If your opponents don't respond quickly, the game lets you "nudge" them. Beyond that, there's not much else you can do. Another problem is that the game doesn't immediately provide you with results - who won, who lost, how many people voted for one picture over another. I often got bored waiting and moved on to a new snap battle. The game does make it easy, however, to encourage your friends and followers on Facebook and Twitter to join in on the action.

Like fatty, salty, fast food or that silly new pop song you can't stop listening to, the app does its best to keep you hooked. Who could resist responding when asked to come up with a picture for what "always gets you laid?" 

The free app is rated 12+, despite "mild mature" themes. The app does make it easy to report inappropriate pictures, which is a good thing. While playing for less than a day, I encountered one picture that I thought was borderline inappropriate.

"Wisdom" Of The Crowd?

The game's developer states that "witty or funny responses often win, the more awful, the better you do, but it all depends on the wisdom of the crowd."

Wisdom of the crowd is a bit of a stretch. This game is about stealing a few moments of amusement - the app equivalent of Lolcats.  

Somewhere on the Internet sits a very well-constructed research paper discussing the psycho-social reasons why we humans love silly pictures and random, mindless contests with strangers, and further outlines the implications of such behavior. That's great, and a huge validation of the enduring value of the Interent.  On the other hand, I have already spent far more time playing Snap, Snap, Go than I ever will reading that paper. 

Most people would agree that Amazon has turned itself into a pretty amazing company. It has turned itself from an e-commerce bookseller into one of the most dynamic companies in the world, providing content for the masses, infrastructure for the Internet and a manufacturer of an array of tablets and e-readers that have helped change the way we read books.

Yet, there is one battle where Amazon has little chance of winning. The battle for App Supremacy.

The Amazon Appstore for Android expanded its global footprint this week, spreading its reach to 200 countries. One might think that Amazon, considering its acumen at selling content like books, movies and music, would be a perfect fit to dominate the app space. But, if Amazon is going to climb to king of App Mountain, it has a long, hard way to go.

(See also Do We Really Need Amazon TV? No, But Amazon Does.)

Appstore Gaining Traction

Amazon's value proposition for its Appstore is pretty clear: if you own a Kindle Fire, you get a curated set of apps that work specifically with your tablet. It is when Amazon tries to extend beyond its own gadgets is where potential is stifled. Amazon Appstore for Android can be downloaded to just about any Android device, but as we have seen with other secondary app stores (Samsung or Verizon), being the second app store is not a recipe for success. 

Despite not being readily available on most Android devices, Appstore continues to gain traction. A new report from app analytics firm Distmo reveals that in the U.S., at least, the "Amazon Appstore is rapidly becoming more and more competitive with Google Play" especially for paid apps.

For raw numbers, Google Play has about 800,000 apps. Apple's' App Store is about the same. The Amazon Appstore? 75,000. Yet, app volume is a bit of an inconsequential argument. Downloads are what matter. In that area, Amazon is not fairing poorly. For example, Distmo found that Google Play is "ten times" bigger than Amazon's Appstore in terms of total app downloads. The graph below shows the large gap in free downloads between Play and Appstore:

In paid downloads, however, Google Play is only twice as big as the Appstore. 

The gap is even narrower when comparing revenues. "The top 200 paid applications in Google Play in the U.S. made $5.2 million in March 2013. This makes Google Play 1.7 times bigger Amazon Appstore."

Amazon is also continuing to expand the Appstore's reach. In 2012, Amazon launched Appstore in the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Japan. Earlier in April, Amazon announced it was expanding Appstore to 200 countries.  

Does that mean Amazon's Appstore could someday unseat Google Play? Not likely.

Amazon's Reality Check

Apps and developer relations are not a core competency for Amazon. The first year of the Appstore was marred by controversy and setbacks with developers, especially concerning the "free app of the day" promotion that gives the Appstore its biggest value bet for consumers.

Update: Amazon refutes the claim that developer relations are not a core competency. Through Amazon Web Services, the company does have significant developer relations in its corporate blood.  Yet, when it comes to developer relations in regards to the Appstore, that has not always been the case. 

From Amazon communications, Rena Lunak: "Amazon has very deep experience and success with developers via Amazon Web Services, specifically.  In fact, the web scale computing services that Amazon Web Services offers today are based on Amazon’s own back-end technology infrastructure which we’ve spent over a decade building into one of the world’s most reliable, scalable, and cost-efficient web infrastructures.  TinyCo, EA, Halfbrick (makers of Fruit Ninja), Red 5 Studios (makers of FireFall), are just a few well-known app and game developers using AWS to ensure they can scale quickly and cost-effectively to meet customer demand."

Developers are still wary of the Amazon Appstore. Greg Raiz, founder of Raizlabs, an independent app studio in Boston, said that his firm has "experimented with the Amazon store and found minimal traction with apps that are deployed there. 

Consumers don't feel they need an alternate store so they don't actively install it. Amazon did get some consumers to install their store experience by offering a "free app a day" promotion. This had some novelty but hasn't impacted developer mindshare in any significant way.

Only Amazon's Kindle Fire tablet line comes pre-loaded with Appstore. For everyone else, Amazon's Appstore requires users follow the company's "detailed instructions" to determine if their specific Android device can even support Appstore, then to download and install it.

Just as important, mainstream Android apps require additional coding to ensure compatibility with Amazon's forked version of the Android operating system for Kindle Fire, and integration with Amazon's store and payments services. It shouldn't come as surprise that a recent survey of 1,500 app developers by app analytics firm App Annie, found that only 22.5% of respondents were publishing to the Appstore. 

Google's Android Strategy Works

Amazon has done well to create a market for its Kindle Fire tablets and, by extension, its own Appstore. Yet, a limited market share makes for limited potential. At the same time, Amazon faces stiff competition from the likes of Samsung and other Android manufacturers for consumer mindshare. The most used Android tablets are not made by Amazon. They are made by Samsung.

Amazon is a digital content powerhouse, particularly in the U.S. In its official earnings statement this week, the company noted its extensive content creation and distribution prowess - in theory, apps shouldn't be any different - it's all just digital content to be packaged, sold and delivered. But Google's Android strategy - giving away the operating system pre-packaged with Google services like Search, Maps - and Play - gives the search giant a level of scalability and device compatibility that Amazon simply cannot match.

Lead image courtesy App Annie 

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. 

In my day, boys and girls, we downloaded songs onto our desktop computer. For free. Often illegally. Then we burned them onto CDs late into the night.

iTunes changed all that. iTunes required that we actually pay for our music. It corralled us into accepting copyright-restricted digital content, while doing its best to force us onto pricey Apple hardware. It foolishly mashed together audio library management tools with a music download service with online payments and computer/mobile device synching - only to somehow grow even more bloated as the years went by. Yet here it is, ten years later, and iTunes towers above all its competitors.

No surprise, then, that Apple is formally celebrating "A Decade of iTunes" with an interactive timeline that is equal parts sales promotion and rare look back.

With the possible exception of Windows Vista, probably no software application from a large company has incurred such vigorous and ongoing public scorn as iTunes. Unlike Vista, however, iTunes continues to grow, evolve and continue its semi-secret though highly successful mission of transforming Apple from anemic, also-ran PC maker to its current position as the world's largest technology and media company.

It was (technically) on April 28, 2003, when Apple launched the iTunes Music Store. The store contained 200,000 songs, all priced at $.99 each. On that same day, Apple announced its third-generation iPod, weighing less than "two CDs" and able to hold 7,500 songs. From those meager beginnings, content delivery, the music, film and software industries - and Apple's fortunes - were all soon to be profoundly changed.

Ten years ago, Apple's share price was $6.66. Today it hovers around $400 (down from more than $700, but still). Recall, if you can, the many Borders and Blockbuster Video stores that dotted the American landscape. iTunes essentially enabled us to buy easily digital content for the first time, and taught us that digital content could be worth paying for.

iTunes Begat iPhone

iTunes helped make Apple relevant once again. It enabled the expansion of Steve Jobs' "digital hub" strategy, guiding Apple from failing computer maker to consumer electronics behemoth. That much is generally accepted. Just as importantly, however, iTunes enabled the iPhone. 

The single biggest reason for Apple's meteoric rise over the last decade is the iPhone. Realizing that the rise of "cell phones" could harm Apple's portable iTunes media players (the iPod), Apple teamed with Motorola to create the much derided Rokr E1 phone in 2005. The hardware was disappointing  and users complained that the device could hold just 100 iTunes songs.

Two years later, however, Apple introduced its own device. The iPhone was the shocking evolution of iTunes and iPod, and Apple's work with Motorola. The point is, no iTunes, likely no iPhone and no iPad - the products that currently contribute more than 60% of Apple's valuation.

Yet even the much-improved iTunes 11 still collects scorn, even from the Apple faithful.

This represents a misunderstanding of the platform's roles. At the initial launch of the iPhone, Steve Jobs noted the importance of  iTunes to the "revolutionary" new device:

The (iPhone) automatically syncs to your PC or Mac right through iTunes.
 And iTunes is gonna sync all of your media onto your iPhone: Your music, your audio books, podcasts, movies, TV shows, music videos. 
But it also syncs a ton of data: Your contacts, your calendars and your photos, which you can get on your iPod today, your notes, your bookmarks from your Web browser, your email accounts, your whole email set-up. All that stuff can be moved over to your iPhone completely automatically. 
It’s really nice.
 And we do it through iTunes. Again, you go to iTunes and you set it up. Just like you’d set up an iPod or an Apple TV. And you set up what you want synced to your iPhone. And it’s just like an iPod. Charge and sync. So sync with iTunes.

Apple Loves iTunes - Even If You Don't

iTunes simultaneously serves as Apple's payments platform, media library app, and digital media storefront - for music, books, apps, podcasts and video. It powers the popular App Store. It is an app for purchasing content on the iPhone and iPad - though not for playing that content. On the Mac, iTunes is (still) both music and video library management layer, music player - though not video player - payments provider and media storefront.

No wonder even long-time Apple users complain of feature bloat and a confusing user interface.

Apple's interactive iTunes timeline, meanwhile, focuses almost exclusively on music. Maybe Apple isn't ready to accept that iTunes has transformed the company from computer hardware maker to a global digital media concern. But consider these numbers:

• 40 billion apps downloaded
• 25 billion songs sold 
• More than 15,000 songs downloaded every minute
• 1 billion courses downloaded on iTunes U
• More than 100 million books on the connected iBookstore
• Available in more than 115 countries
• 45% of the video on demand market in the U.S.

iTunes has also delivered tremendous value to content owners, publishers and app developers. According to Apple analyst Horace Dediu, iTunes generated more than $24 billion in revenues for content owners (media and app developers) in the past five years.

No matter what you may think of it personally, iTunes has been essential to Apple's success. Expect it to continue to pushing the company forward, in all its messy, bloated glory.

Images courtesy of Apple.

The next Hollywood blockbuster may not be made using a smartphone, but that day is soon coming. This year's Academy Award winner for Best Documentary Feature, Searching for Sugarman, was shot mostly on traditional, costly 8mm film. The director shot some final scenes, however, with his iPhone and the $2 app 8mm Vintage Camera. Increasingly, high-quality films - shorts, especially - are being made entirely with nothing more than a smartphone.

Today's high-end smartphones pack a virtual film studio in your pocket. The Nokia Lumia 920, for example, includes a 1080p full-HD video camera, zoom light, image stabilization and multiple white balance modes to help ensure that perfect shot.  

Specs aren't enough to convince you?

Blackberry has teamed up with famed Sin City director, Robert Rodriguez, to create a short film using the new Blackberry Z10. Former Cannes film festival winner, Park Chan-wook, used a smartphone to film Paranmanjan - it won the Golden Bear for Best Short Film at the 2011 Berlin Film Festival. 

Not only are smarpthone-shot films making it into film festivals, smartphone-only film festivals are cropping up around the world, such as the Mobil Film Festival in San Diego, the Pocket Film Festival in Paris and the Olleh International Smartphone Film Festival in Korea.

Each of these festivals showcase the device's potential for creating stirring films while enabling those with the talent, no matter where they may be located, to unleash their creative potential.

Personal Filmmaking on a Global Scale

Despite their limitations, smartphones do offer some unique advantages over traditional filmmaking. Smartphone films can be made on a very low budget - which likely encourages risk-taking that traditional filmmaking shuns. Smartphones can film almost anywhere - and they are with us nearly everywhere. The portable nature of the device allows for more intimate moments and increases opportunities for filmmaking with a more personal viewpoint. Smartphones allow those who traditionally are rarely portrayed in films, such as those in impoverished areas around the world, to now be seen. With a smartphone and YouTube, immediate global distribution is possible.

For example, at the third annual Olleh smartphone film festival in Korea, smartphone-made films from around the world were submitted. Last weekend, twenty-five films were screened by the jury for public viewing. All are now available on YouTube. Winners included:

[Note: Some videos below contain foul language]

24 Months Later (Grand Prize and Audience favorite)

Great, even if the whole zombie thing has gotten a bit overplayed.

Tell Me About Yourself (Best Actor award)

Short, funny and probably not safe for sharing with your boss.

Board Maker (Special Youth Award winner)

I confess, I did not get this.

The Opportunity is Everywhere

There is a growing movement - and market - for smartphone films. There are numerous apps to help the budding smartphone filmmaker improve their story outline, streamline the editing process and even maximize time spent shooting in sunlight. There is also a growing market for accessories. These include everything from optional lenses, to an iPhone "dolly" and smartphone "steadicam."

Need funding for your film? Over $128 million has been pledged on Kickstarter for film and video projects. It's quite possible that very soon many if not most crowdfunded films will be shot entirely with a smartphone.

Still hesitant?

The Guardian asked director Matt Carroll for tips. His advice includes methods to improve sound and post-film editing, and guidance on the all-important topic of lighting:

The (smartphone) camera doesn't see subtle light gradations like we do, so it's best to avoid areas of high contrast. For example, if it's a sunny day and you're filming someone under an awning, the chances are they'll come out too dark or the background will be bleached out ('burnt').  

Need more help? 

In France, Pocket Film Festival founder Benoît Labourdette conducts workshops to help smartphone filmmakers. His primary advice is to use your phone’s natural advantage - its size and portability - to get shots that are inaccessible to traditional cameras.

Far removed from Hollywood?

The World Film Collective teaches youth in impoverished areas - from Africa and South America, to inner cities in the UK - to make films using only a smartphone. 

The result?

Smartphones are rapidly becoming the tools people across the planet are using to tell their stories and show them to the world.

Lead image courtesy of Shutterstock. 

Foursquare has been the darling of the burgeoning "SoLoMo"(social-local-mobile) revolution ever since the company burst onto the scene at South by Southwest (SXSW) in 2009. The company's financial fortunes, however, have not been so sweet. According to BusinessWeek, Foursquare brought in a paltry $2 million in revenue for all of 2012. Perhaps that's why after raking in $71 million in three major funding rounds, Foursquare's lastest funding comes in the form of $41 million in debt.

Still, that's a lot of money, and with the new cash stash, the company is shifting its business focus away from check-ins toward selling its trove of user location and behavior data to businesses, ad exchanges and others. This may be the company's last, best chance to succeed. 

What went wrong?

Here are five primary reasons why Foursquare failed to capitalize on the disruptive market potential of social-local-mobile — despite its early mover advantage.

1. Gamification Doesn't Scale

From the beginning, Foursquare incorporated gamification elements deep within the user experience. Users could earn virtual points, garner "badges" and become, say, the "mayor" of the local donut shop. 

Gamification, according to Wikipedia, is the use of "game thinking and game mechanics in a non-game context in order to engage users and solve problems." But Foursquare showed that gamification may not terribly relevant to smartphone users — nor much of a revenue generator. In its latest iteration, Foursquare has shifted the user focus away from the app's traditional gamification elements to make local search and discovery more prominent.

2. The Business Model Remains Elusive

What is Foursquare? Does the company itself know, even now? 

Foursquare currently bills itself as:

a free app that helps you and your friends make the most of where you are. When you're out and about, use Foursquare to share and save the places you visit. And, when you're looking for inspiration for what to do next, we'll give you personalized recommendations and deals based on where you, your friends, and people with your tastes have been. Whether you're setting off on a trip around the world, coordinating a night out with friends, or trying to pick out the best dish at your local restaurant, Foursquare is the perfect companion.

That's a lot of different things. Which ones are going to pay the bills? 

Foursquare, an early mover in social-local-mobile, is still searching for proven business model. And numerous companies now focus on this space. Google, Facebook, Yelp, Path, Groupon, LivingSocial and a slew of others are all aggressively seeking to profit from the ongoing integration of offline and online retail, marketing and advertising, and the merging of social, local and mobile data.

Google offers Reviews, Google+ recommendations and advertised links within Maps, along with search. Facebook's local Check-In feature has no doubt already limited Foursquare's potential.

How is Foursquare going to compete? The company has long allowed select businesses to buy promoted listings and sponsor special offers inside the app. Now, the company is allowing any merchant to purchase an ad. If users check-in to a coffee shop, for example, they may receive an ad from a competing establishment. Foursquare's unique user behavior and location data make this possible, but users may find these kinds of ads intrusive. And both consumers and marketers now have plenty of alternatives.

3. Yelp Is Better

Foursquare's new direction takes it into direct competition with Yelp — a battle Foursquare will have trouble winning. Yelp simply does a better job at gauging and responding to real-time, location-based user intent.

Yelp users, for example, typically start searching for establishments when they are interested in a particular time and place. Yelp makes it easy for them to filter within specific categories and by personal preference. No matter the quality of its data, Foursquare's "search and discovery" recommendations will always have trouble competing with user-driven intent. 

The two companies also expose a core divergence over value of data that offers personalized recommendations versus data that aggregates the wisdom of the crowd. Compared to Yelp, Foursquare does a far better job telling you that a friend has recommended a particular neighborhood bar, for example. It may be far more important to you, however, to know that a nearby bar has been recommended by more than 100 people, even if they're mostly strangers. This is the Yelp model. While recommendation algorithms and anticipatory systems may someday prove more valuable, so far Yelp's aggregate data model has proven far more popular. 

4. Better Design Isn't Enough

The new Foursquare app incorporates crisp, visible fonts; real-time mapping; colorful icons; and user pictures. It makes adequate use of touchscreen swiping to move across the app's core functions. It's slick, but a bit confusing.

The app's home page, for example, includes a bookmark tab, chat function, search bar, small map, information on the user's last check-in, data on "places nearby" — without details — trending topics and a large floating button that pops up a short list of nearby businesses. It's hard to see how the new design will drive engagement or draw in new users. 

The app's design seems to mirror Foursquare's mash-up of old and new business models — an apt metaphor for the company's struggles.

5. Selling Data Isn't A Slam Dunk

Integrating offline and online, merging social, mobile and local — in real-time — seems to be the sweet spot for the future of commerce. Foursquare lives in this space. It's user base, billions of check-ins and location data, including across the thousands of apps it's linked to, may in fact be the single best collection of social and local personal data currently available. 

The value of all that data, however, remains unproven. Plus, Foursquare can't just only on the existing database, it has to continually inject new information from new users to remain relevant. Even then, while some ad agency executives recently quoted in AdAge called Foursquare's "unique and proprietary data incredibly valuable," others suggested that Foursquare's data didn't offer anything they could not already get elsewhere.  

Positive Signs?

Foursquare is forging ahead regardless. On the plus side, the company's non-financial metrics are quite impressive:

• 30 million users worldwide
• 3.5 billion check-ins
• 1 million businesses signed-up  
• API integration with 40,000 apps - including with Facebook, Instagram, Vine and Twitter

With its latest $41 million infusion, the company plans to increase its sales staff from 10 people to 40. The company claims that ad-related click-throughs on its app run 3% to 5%, far higher than the industry standard of 1% or less. These are all positive signs.

Will it be enough? Despite its popularity, for the past four years, Foursquare has failed to fully capitalize on the social-local-mobile opportunity. The move from check-ins to data mining is a huge gamble. One that Foursquare has to win, as it won't likely get another chance.

Lead image from Foursquare

As any smartphone owner knows all too well, even the best of today's mobile devices are completely dependent on batteries that can't often keep up with the rest of the technology.

Even the savviest hardware makers are bumping up against the limits of what they can extract from existing battery technology. They're forced to spend enormous efforts creating various engineering "cheats" to coax out the maximum battery life and performance for our most favored gadgets.

Despite frenzied research into both battery hardware and power-management software, the best you can say is that the industry is almost managing to keep up with the demand for more and more portable power. 

10 Times Better Than Today's Batteries

Finally, help may be on the way.

According to a recently published article in the journal Nature Communications, researchers at the University of Illinois claim to have developed lithium ion microbatteries with power densities up to "2,000 times" more powerful than comparable batteries. Or more helpfully, technology that could support batteries either 10 times smaller or 10 times more powerful than today's typical lithium-ion batteries. 

Professor William P. King, who led the university team, clearly has high hopes for the battery technology. In a statement, he said:

In recent decades, electronics have gotten small. The thinking parts of computers have gotten small. And the battery has lagged far behind. This is a microtechnology that could change all of that. Now the power source is as high-performance as the rest of it.

"You could jump-start a car with the battery in your cellphone," the researchers crow in their report. They also claim their battery tech can be recharged 1,000 faster than today's batteries. Put it all together and you could theoretically have a "credit-card-thin phone" that could be recharged in less than a second. 

The new battery tech remains in the labs, however, although the team hopes to trial it in commercial settings later this year. If viable, it could revolutionize the market for consumer mobile electronics such as smartphone and tablets - and spur a new outpouring of innovative hardware and screen designs. 

How Does It Work?

In simple terms, a chemical reaction inside a battery causes the anode to release electrons. When the battery is "on" these electrons flow from the anode to the cathode - which is on the opposite side of the battery. The University of Illinois team claims its breakthrough "integrates the anode and cathode at the microscale." Meaning, this allows for even a very small battery to have a "very high surface area" - and thus provide far greater power density (output) and simultaneously support much faster charging.

Battery Life Is Everyone's Problem

Battery performance continues to limit what smartphones and other mobile devices can do. Apple maintains a webpage devoted solely to helping customers improve battery life of their iPads. The company suggests users "update to the latest software," "use your iPad regularly" and 15 other actions to boost battery life, including "let it breathe." Seriously.

In 2012's J.D. Power smartphone satisfaction survey, "battery life" was listed as "a significant drain on customer satisfaction and loyalty." J.D. Power even noted that battery issues for smartphones resulted in "higher rates of merchandise returns and customer defections."

Is It Safe?

The new microbattery could help solve those problems, if they don't catch on fire. The BBC quoted University of Oxford chemist Peter Edwards wondering if the technology could meet the competing demands of cost, manufacturing scalability and safety:  

I'd want to know if these microbatteries would be more prone to the self-combustion issues that plagued lithium-cobalt oxide batteries which we've seen become an issue of concern with Boeing's Dreamliner jets.

Here's hoping the team at Illinois, or one of the many other groups working on this problem, achieve a commercially viable - and safe - battery breakthrough soon. I hate it when my iPhone runs out of power just when I need it most.

Lead graphic representation of new battery technology courtesy of the University of Illinois.  

I suffer from panic attacks. At least, I used to - I've not had a single one since I got my iPhone. And I'm convinced these two things are related.

You may not know this, but panic attacks are surprisingly common. According to a study backed by the National Institutes For Health (NIH), 1 in 8 Americans will experience a panic attack at least once during their lifetime. 

Perhaps any smartphone would help, or even any device capable of creating both distractions and social connections. For me, though, having my iPhone always nearby, always on, its many features and functions ready to occupy my mind, my eyes, ears and fingertips, is often enough to reduce the onset of an attack. The device seems to draw out, bit by bit, all those fears, worries and repetitive patterns that used to conspire to throw me into despair, fear and then panic.

If it really is the iPhone that's helped mitigate my symptoms, and I believe it is, then perhaps others who suffer from similar attacks - and own a smartphone - can also find some relief.

What Is A Panic Attack?

The Mayo Clinic defines a panic attack as:

A sudden episode of intense fear that triggers severe physical reactions when there is no real danger or apparent cause. Panic attacks can be very frightening. When panic attacks occur, you might think you're losing control, having a heart attack or even dying.

In a panic attack, the overwhelming sense of fear, as real as it is inexplicable, wreaks havoc not only on your psyche but on your daily contribution to the world. An attack can strike seemingly at random: at home, with friends at a bar, at work, standing in line at Starbucks; anywhere, anytime. That's what makes them so debilitating. 

Twice, I went to the hospital, convinced my symptoms meant an impending drop-dead heart attack. Both times I was told I was not having a heart attack. Eventually, I was diagnosed as suffering from anxiety disorder - which can lead to panic attacks. 

To treat anxiety, doctors recommend exercise, meditation, more sleep and visualization techniques. For those who suffer full-blown panic attacks, professional help is suggested, as is medication. I was prescribed Prozac. Since getting an iPhone, however - though my case absolutly may not be typical - I have been able to gradually reduce my daily Prozac to its lowest available dosage. I expect to soon be off it entirely. I have also stopped seeing a therapist.

Using The iPhone To Improve My (Mental) Health

The potential for the iPhone to aid physical healthcare delivery and diagnostics is well documented. The market for smartphone tools that aid mental health is far less robust. But they do exist. For example, the iPhone app Viary, leverages traditional cognitive behavior therapy techniques:

Together with a therapist, Viary’s clients choose specific actions that will help them achieve a desired goal. For example a client may decide that exercising, eating healthier food, and listening to classical music makes them feel less depressed. Viary sets reminders for these behaviors - walk for 15 minutes every morning, take a vegetarian lunch, tune into some Beethoven etc, - and the app then collects data on these completed actions. Therapists or coaches can then monitor a client’s progress in real time and even respond. 

For me, however, I'm convinced that simply possessing an iPhone has improved my mental health. No matter what symptom crops up, using the iPhone helps calm me down and makes me feel more connected. If I feel inexplicably worried, no matter where I am, no matter who I am with - and this is out of necessity - I pull out my iPhone and start texting. I later apologize to those I am with.

If I feel alone, I call someone. If I get angry, I play a game - preferably online, with friends. When I am bored, I read on my Kindle app. When I can't get a song out of my head, I take to Twitter. If my breathing seems off, I make reminder lists of what I need to do for the day, the week, the rest of my life. If the feelings persist, I open Evernote and scroll through all the notes that have a "thankful" tag attached to them.

If I feel like I can't leave the house, I check my Fitbit app, find out how many steps I've taken that day, then tell myself I will go outside just long enough to add 1,000 more to my total. This usually works. 

Sometimes, when things get really dark, I scroll through my photos, which makes me happy. If that's not enough, I make notes to myself of everything I am grateful for - then email them, knowing my wife can later access the account. 

And when I feel good, good enough even to help others, I sit in the sun, pull out my iPhone and write a blog post. Like now.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock. 

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.

Here's one for you: how is it that some of the smartest, richest, market-savviest companies on the planet - allegedly - can't seem to figure out how to name their products in a way that isn't strikingly confusing?

The "new iPad" is not to be confused with the iPad 2. The new iPad is in fact, iPad 3. Only, Apple doesn't call it that - nor do they market it as "new iPad" anymore, either. Rather, it is now branded as "iPad with Retina display" - with the "R" capitalized, though not the "d."

Don't ask me why.

While the iPad with Retina display is newer than iPad 2 it does not come with a model number. Nor does the iPad Mini. At least, not yet. I assume that Apple will still sell "iPad Mini" - likely at a lower price - when the newest "Mini" model is released. Which I'm also guessing will be called "iPad Mini with Retina display." Or maybe iPad Mini 2. 

After that, all bets are off.

Which brings up the question: how is it that some of the smartest, richest, market-savviest companies on the planet - allegedly - can't seem to figure out how to name their products in a way that isn't strikingly confusing?

Welcome To Branding Hell

What comes after iPhone 5? iPhone 5S, perhaps? Or iPhone 6? Is there any real difference? 

And will it come pre-loaded with iOS 7?

Yet despite the inexplicable naming conventions that Apple uses for its products, it's not the worst perpetrator - not even close. 

Which is better? The HTC One or the HTC First? How is it possible that HTC offers multiple "Ones" at the same time? Which "one" do you want?

• HTC One
• HTC One S
• HTC One SV
• HTC One V
• HTC One X
• HTC One X+ (no, I did not make that up)

I'm not even going to attempt to wade through the angrily confusing versions and price points of software products, such as Microsoft Office. There's "Premium," "365," "Enterprise," Mid-Sized Business" - to name only a few!  

Technology is here to help us. Otherwise, it does not belong. Technology with a confusing name is, therefore, suspect. If you can't even get the name right, what else might be wrong with it?

A Galaxy Far, Far Away

Consider Samsung. Go into an AT&T store, for example, and there you find at least six different "Samsung Galaxy" devices. These are not to be confused, however, with the various "Galaxy Nexus" devices. In other words, the Galaxy brand name now means essentially nothing.

If you don't believe me, just answer this question: which Galaxy is right for you? A Samsung Galaxy S III or a Samsung Galaxy Note II? Will you even bother to find out? Should you have to try?

What? There's a line of various Galaxy "Tabs"? 

Does Samsung not want my business?

And is the Galaxy Note 8.0 four times better than the Galaxy Note II? (Or do Roman numerals count for more?) Wait. Will the next version of the Galaxy Note 10.1 be a 10.2? 

Nor is it possible to divine the brand meaning - and thus the brand value - of the Motorola Droid line versus Android versus Nexus - all of which is owned by Google. Which I've heard is now overseen by the Google Chrome team.

Do companies just pick names out of a hat?

If not, then how much money did Nokia pay its marketing staff to promote the Lumia 820 as "our most versatile phone?" Was it more or less than they paid the team that branded the Lumia 920 as "our most amazing phone?" 

In just the U.S., there is a Lumia 710, 800 810, 820, 822, 900 and 920. I dare you to uncover the meaning, intent, price, value, speed and/or ability of any of those based on their actual name. According to Nokia's own site, the Lumia 900 is available "from $0.01" whereas the Lumia 800 is "from 526.72." 

Why? It seems backwards.

And, no, I am even going to try and select which of these fourteen different Blackberry smartphones is right for me.

Are these companies even paying attention? Maybe it's time for some brand simplification to put some sense in the market place.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.

If I can recommend a great local restaurant, leave a review for future patrons, alert my followers on Twitter, update my Facebook friends on my great new find - all in a few seconds - using only Yelp and my iPhone, why can't I similarly promote those businesses whose values I support?

Why is it so easy to tell thousands of people, literally, how awful a coffee shop's service is, for example, but I can't as easily steer people away from a store whose values I deplore? 

It seems to me there should be an app - or maybe lots of apps - that make it easy for me to find, check-in, rate, review and recommend those businesses whose values align with mine. Forget pet friendly - are they gay friendly, Earth friendly? Do they seek a massive reduction in the size of government, do they refuse to buy from China, will they never cross a union picket line and can I count on them to support a strong national defense?

With the Yelp app, for example, I can easily set various parameters for a restaurant search: proximity, price range, type of food and customer ranking. But values is not one of the choices. This seems like a rather significant gap within the mobile-social-local nexus. 

Values Equal Profits

There does not yet exist a robust analog for finding and supporting businesses I want to promote because of their values, and not simply their price, location or customer service. Why is that? In today's connected world - when anyone can get anything from anywhere, and always at the best price - values can become a core differentiator.

I don't want my money going to a business that is opposed to gay marriage. Perhaps that's exactly what you do want. Why not incorporate a "values" layer into Foursquare, for example and discover and share those businesses that have the very best lattes - and the strongest support for the values most important to me.

Foursquare users, for example, can "discover and learn about great places nearby, search for what you’re craving, and get deals and tips along the way." The app's 30 million users have checked in to various establishments more than 3 billion times. Consider the potential social good Foursquare could foster if values were made into a searchable variable. 

The Trust Issue

Can people be trusted to not list a business as, say, homophobic, just because they were angry over the price or a long line to check out? Is it possible to know if a business legitimately supports climate-change improvements, for example, or is really working to limit poverty? It may be hard for a business to lie about its prices but all too easy to claim social and political stances that it doesn't back up with actions.

Fortunately, with more than a hundred million smartphones in use in America - more than 1 billion worldwide - the aggregate numbers and big data "smoothing" of billions of values-based check-ins and reviews should mitigate any lies or mistakes. For example, Amazon product reviews can generally be relied upon as a valid barometer of popular sentiment, even though they're completely subjective.

A few websites already provide a limited form of "values-based" recommendations for businesses. For example, OutGrade, launched earlier this year, lets users "rate places by gay friendliness or homophobia." Users rate establishments on a scale from -5 to +5, and the site color codes businesses based on their overall score: red is homophobic, green is " gay friendly." The OutGrade site accepts ratings for any business: restaurant, dentist office, pub, hotel, etc. and in three months has garnered reviews on more than 3,500 businesses. 

OutGrade plans to release a mobile app "in the coming weeks." This is vital as it allows users to simply pull out their smartphones and find acceptable places in their immediate vicinity. While a website may offer a more robust experience, only an app can provide real-time location-based ratings and reviews, while boosting the reliability of recommendations by letting users initiate reviews on the spot.

One More Step

Why not an app that alerts me to a store's values as I walk inside? Or that alerts me to a product whose maker I want to support? For example, when I stare at that massive beer selection in the grocery store, perhaps my "values app" can remind me that Bud Light used social media to support gay marriage.

Plenty of apps and sites focus on a specific value or set of values, or utilize a top-down approach, where those who create the app set the rankings. This is a good start, but does not fully empower smartphone user to personally rate businesses by the values that matter to them. 

For example, the Good Guide site rates an array of products that are "healthy, green and socially responsible." While useful, the information covers only selected products and is rated by a "team of scientific and technology experts," not actual users.

The FishPhone app offers a similar service and provides the seafood ratings system for Whole Foods. Of course, Whole Foods' CEO was famously opposed to Obamacare. The app would never tell me that. 

This is a critical problem with single-focus and those not maintained not by the end users. For example, Ceres, "a network of over 130 investment funds, environmental organizations, unions and interest groups" promotes major companies that are making significant progress on sustainability goals. Ford was a recent winner. That's great, unless you believe that a large automobile manufacturer should never be included on a list of sustainability leaders.

Getting Comfortable With Controversial Topics

The issue preventing a user-driven values based shopping app is not a technical one. The larger issue is that too many of us are not yet comfortable with the very idea of values-based recommendations.

When it comes to choosing goods and services, we have spent our whole lives focused on price, quality and convenience. Values are fuzzy, harder to quantify - and can lead to difficult decisions. What if your friendly, neighborhood grocer, for example, turns out be a climate change denier - and you live in area prone to flooding? Once you learn the values of a business and determine you are in opposition, would you continue to shop there? Will supporting only businesses whose values align with yours merely serve to divide society instead of promoting the values in question?

The technology to make this possible already exists, so it's likely we'll have the answers soon enough.

iPhone image courtesy of Apple.

Facebook did not just launch a "Facebook Phone" last week, as was expected. Instead, along with the HTC First, it offered up Home, a "family of apps" that is neither a phone nor a smartphone operating system - but which may ultimately have a far greater impact on the mobile industry than either one of those things.

Facebook Home overlays a visually appealing "Cover Feed" onto the Android smartphone home screen. The Facebook member's Newsfeed, pictures, texts, select notifications and "Chat Heads" of their friends are all displayed. If the Facebook Home user is inside another app - any other app - and receives a Facebook Message from a friend, for example, a "Chat Head" - the friend's face and message - pops up on the phone screen. While not a true operating system, Home becomes the de facto user experience.

Though Home will be available only on select Android models when it debuts on Friday, April 12, it has the long-term potential to shake up everything from Google's Android and Apple's iPhone to mobile carriers and handset makers. Especially when you consider that Facebook has more than 1 billion members, and is on more than 600 million mobile devices - including approximately 200 million Android smartphones and 150 million iPhones.  

First, let's look at the losers.

Loser: Apple

For all the talk of how Facebook Home could potentially disintermediate Google from its own Android operating system, Home's clearest threat may be to Apple's lucrative iPhone business. Indeed, during the Facebook Home launch, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg mocked Apple's "there's an app for that" user interface: "We're not building a phone, and we're not building an OS — we're building an experience that's deeper than any other app." If Facebook Home succeeds, expect iPhone sales to be harmed. The iPhone's operating system may begin to look dated, and customers may seek out those devices that offer Home - and for the foreseeable future, that means Android-only. 

Loser: Mobile Carriers

Facebook is already promoting Home's robust texting features, and Facebook Home is obviously a legitimate threat to the carrier's lucrative SMS (texting) business. According to the Wall Street Journal, for years carriers have relied on SMS for "the bulk of their revenue" but "the rise of texting apps has taken away $23 billion in revenue from carriers as of the end of 2012."

Facebook Home takes direct aim at the carriers' SMS revenues. ReadWrite's Nick Statt considers Home's "Chat Heads" feature to be an "SMS killer."

"Chat Heads give Facebook a subtle way to nudge users away from (carrier) SMS and towards its own platform," Statt wrote, "This move finally establishes Facebook Message as a serious player in the field of SMS-killers, and the most disruptive one to date. Its success, or failure, will likely reverberate throughout the mobile world."

Loser: Handset Makers

Apple and Samsung take the lion's share of the smartphone handset market's profits - by far. All other smartphone handset makers are struggling to stand out, much less eke out a profit. If customers are happy with any Android device that runs Facebook Home, handset makers will no doubt have an even harder time differentiating themselves. If customers gravitate to the lowest priced devices - as long as they run Home - handset makers may find it impossible to make any money.

Loser: Google

At least publicly, Google has welcomed Facebook Home to its Android platform:

The Android platform has spurred the development of hundreds of different types of devices. This latest device demonstrates the openness and flexibility that has made Android so popular.

But Facebook Home is also a big challenge to Android's business model. Android's primary revenue generating services, including Search, Maps, Gmail and YouTube, are typically pre-loaded onto sanctioned Android devices. The more Android devices, the more people access Google services, the more revenues Google generates. 

Should Facebook Home effectively replace or block access to Google services, the Google Android strategy could take a massive hit. 

Industry analyst and venture capitalist Jean-Louis Gassee, put it this way:

Facebook’s new Home on Android smartphone is an audacious attempt to demote the OS to a utility role, to keep to itself user data Android was supposed to feed into Google’s advertising business. Google’s reaction will be worth watching.

Loser: App Developers

Facebook formally describes Home as "a completely new experience that lets you see the world through people, not apps." Beyond the promotional language, Home poses a threat to Android app developers, as it essentially hides all other apps beneath the Facebook Home screen. In the world of Facebook Home, apps are relegated to second-tier status. (And should a Facebook Home user call up their apps, they are listed in alphabetical order, not by user preference.)

According to the latest Canalys app store research, apps generate more than $2 billion every quarter, and 51% of all apps downloaded last quarter were on Google Play. This means that Facebook Home could have a massive impact on these app developers, in particular. 

Sore Loser: Microsoft

The day after Facebook announced Home, Frank X. Shaw, Microsoft's Corporate Vice President of Corporate Communications, mocked Facebook for essentially copying Microsoft's Windows Phone look and "people first" design ethos. "While we applaud Facebook for working to give some Android owners a taste of what a 'people-centric' phone can be like, we’d humbly like to suggest that you get the real thing, and simply upgrade to a Windows Phone." Corporate snark aside, if Windows Phone was selling in adequate numbers, than no doubt Facebook - which Microsoft has invested in - would have seen fit to devote resources and mindshare to the platform.

But Facebook Home isn't all bad news, of course. There are plenty of winners, too:

Winner: HTC

The first device to come with Facebook Home pre-installed is from HTC - the HTC First. Once one of the larger players in the Android market, HTC has fallen on hard times. It's close relationship with Facebook and first-mover status on Home could help the struggling device maker. Certainly, it can't hurt.

(See also "HTC's Financial Woes Put Pressure on Microsoft & Facebook.")

Winner: Google 

Yes, Facebook Home threatens Google. But it also offers opportunity. Because Home is Android only, at least for the foreseeable future, there is a real possibility that Home will spur Android sales. 

At Home's launch, Mark Zuckerberg stated: "I actually think this is really good for Android." Zuckerberg noted that despite Android's larger market share, app developers typically flock to Apple's iOS first. He claimed that Home could spur "more innovation" to flow to the Android ecosystem, enticing app makers to do their best work there. It's hard to see why those app makers would want their wares buried under Facebook Home, but who knows?

Winner: Facebook

Facebook has no "phone" and no smartphone operating system. It's revenues from mobile devices remain meager compared to Google and Apple. Home could help change all that. Home proves that Facebook hasn't just embraced "mobile first," but as Zuckerberg put it at the launch event, "Mobile Best... We think this is the best version of Facebook there is." Unlike earlier versions of Facebook for mobile, Home is appealing and accessible. Facebook is clearly the biggest winner from Facebook Home. 

Image of Facebook Home courtesy of Facebook.

U.S. teens' passionate embrace of smartphones and a "mobile first" mentality to the Internet shows no signs of slowing down. According to the latest Pew Research on teens and technology:

• 37% of teens in the U.S. have a smartphone.
• 25% of those aged 12-17 access the Internet "primarily" via a cell phone or smartphone.
• Among teens with a smartphone, however, 50% access the Internet primarily via the mobile device.
• Girls are more likely than boys to rely on their smartphone as their primary Internet access device.

The rapid adoption of smartphones and the parallel demands for a real-time, location-based and personalized Internet will clearly have a significant and potentially lasting impact on work, shopping, entertainment, the PC industry - and even the structural underpinnings of the Internet. According to Pew:

In many ways, teens represent the leading edge of mobile connectivity, and the patterns of their technology use often signal future changes in the adult population. Teens are just as likely to have a cell phone as they are to have a desktop or laptop computer. And increasingly these phones are affording teens always-on, mobile access to the internet — in some cases, serving as their primary point of access.  

(See also "Good Luck Building A Business In Today's Youth Market.")

Adoption of the mobile Web by teens appears to be accelerating.

• 37% of American youth ages 12-17 now have a smartphone, up from 23% in 2011.
• Already, 23% of teens own a tablet.  
• No group is more connected to the Internet overall than teens.

Household income and urbanity are strongly correlated with teen smartphone use. Black and Hispanic teens are more likely to own a smartphone than their White counterparts. The smartphone could be the tool that eradicates the digital divide.

What Parents Don't Know

A 2012 University of Washington study noted that teens in general considered their rather high level of connectivity as necessary for effective cultural development and to prevent social isolation. 

This does not mean, however, that teens are eagerly sharing these many online engagements with their parents. Smartphones, which by their very nature are designed for use by a single person - unlike a family computer in the living room, say - may make it even harder for parents to know what their children are doing online. A McAfee study last year, for example, noted that 70% of teens actively seek to hide their online behavior from their parents. (The McAfee study examined digital activity across multiple computing devices, not just smartphones.) 

The shift to mobile internet use changes the ways teens access information and creates new challenges for parents who wish to monitor their children’s Internet use. Given bandwidth constraints and the fact that many websites are not yet optimized for mobile devices, teens who access content primarily on their cell phone may have to work harder to get important information.  On the other hand, for parents who may wish to restrict access to their children’s exposure to certain kinds of content online, mobile devices can make it more difficult for parents to use the passive monitoring strategies they tell us they prefer, instead requiring more technical solutions.

It is not yet fully understood how the always-connected teen might alter the economy, work, even culture - though it will no doubt touch nearly every aspect of society. For example, there has already been a "drastic drop" in the number of teens getting  driver's licenses, likely due to their adoption of mobile technology and social media. Expect many more changes to come. Today's teens have grown up online - and online increasingly means via a smartphone.

Image of happy teens courtesy of Shutterstock.

Facebook Home, which Facebook has described both as "a new way to turn your Android phone into a great, living, social phone" and "the best version of Facebook there is," won't be available on Apple's iPhone anytime soon, if ever. Does Apple care?

Probably not, although it should. More than an app, though not quite a operating system, Facebook Home delivers a highly visual, system-wide presentation of real-time social data that also makes innovative use of touch-based gestures. In the process, it makes iOS look, well, dated.

Jony Ive, call your office.

Why Apple Shouldn't Worry About Home

In the short term, Apple has relatively little to fear. Tech blogger and Apple enthusiast Dan Frommer, for instance, argues that Apple retains a "big lead in hardware and OS quality, apps, media, and customer service" — and that as a result, we shouldn't expect to see iPhone users bolt to Facebook phones, at least not yet. Instead, he figures Facebook Home will likely appeal to buyers of low-end Android devices.

(See also: Facebook Home: A Slick Interface & A Big Challenge)

Mobile analyst Benedict Evans told me:

The barriers to switching between platforms are pretty large: a slightly easier way to access Facebook Messenger won't be enough to make people make the switch. That's particularly the case for iPhone, which has a 70-80% repurchase intention rate.

Similarly, from Asymco analyst Horace Dediu:

In the phone business there are three things which define a product's volume: distribution, distribution and distribution. Home is a more ambitious version of an app (designed to extract more from the user) and so it is more constrained in all three areas. It needs "permission" from device makers, platform vendors and operators in order to proliferate. End user installation is an option but it's not likely to drive large volumes.

(See also: Facebook Home Could Be A Pain, Unless You Really Love Facebook)

Dediu's quick analysis of Home leads him to believe that it could drive up to 10 million units a year. That's not nothing, of course, but still a pittance compared to the approximately 48 million iPhones Apple sold just last quarter.

Why Apple Should Worry About Home

Home, however, could have a significant long-term impact on iPhone's app-centric user interface. This might be to Apple's benefit.

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

At yesterday's Home launch, Mark Zuckerberg oh-so-delicately suggested that iOS — iPhone's operating system — is looking a bit out-of-touch these days: 

Instead of our phones being designed around apps first, what if we flip that around? What if our phones were designed around people first?

Indeed, Home's innovative system-wide presentation and highly visual user experience may even serve as a guide to Apple design guru Jonathan Ive. 

Facebook Home effectively takes over a device's lock screen, populating it in real-time with the user's Newsfeed, photo stream and Facebook-sanctioned notifications. Updates from the user's Facebook contacts, or a Facebook message, for example, are revealed instantly no matter what app is active through the clever use of "chat heads."

Chat heads also supports texting and messaging from within another (non-Facebook) app. Facebook Home's notifications include the individual's profile picture and can be displayed in a card-like fashion. 

These are visually appealing features which are not available in the iPhone. 

Here's Zuckerberg belaboring the point yesterday:

We're not building a phone, and we're not building an OS — we're building an experience that's deeper than any other app.

Apple Is Playing Catch-Up

You have to assume that Ive and Apple's iOS design team are poring over every detail Zuckerberg and company revealed yesterday. Earlier this week, Apple bloggers such as Mark Gurman, M.G. Siegler, Rene Richie and John Gruber discussed ways Apple might update iOS on the discussion site Branch. Consider these snippets from their public conversation: 

Apple should use WWDC to introduce and explain new functionality... and improve iOS inter-app communication. Admit that some things sucked/sucks. 

(Design chief Jony) Ive's work is apparently making many people really happy, but will also apparently make rich-texture-loving designers sad.

Ive getting his hands on the UI might alter the consumer-facing bullet points, but probably not the API's that were planned.

Ive is pushing a more “flat design” that is starker and simpler, according to developers who have spoken to Apple employees but didn’t have further details. Overall, they expect any changes to be pretty conservative.

There is clearly an opportunity for Apple to maintain its closed platform while still supporting greater inter-app communications, more robust developer access to the lock-screen, multi-modal personal communications, and the effective integration of data and contacts across apps, just like Home.

While iPhone hardware has clearly evolved, a 2008 iPhone user would feel immediately at home with iOS in 2013. There is good in such stability - and it is a testament to how much Apple got right, and how far ahead of the competition it was upon launch. However, as our smartphones do more and play a larger role in people's lives, Apple cannot stand still - nor be perceived as standing still.

Images screencapped from the Facebook Home live event

The iPhone killed my creativity by killing my boredom. The iPhone makes it so easy — and so enticing — to reach for my smartphone and do anything other than waste time in some long line, for example, or squander it being bored for even just a few moments. A quick game of Words With Friends, an update to my Facebook Newsfeed, a clever tweet; with smartphone in hand, the possibilities are endless.

By burning through my life's many empty, wasted moments, however, I am probably diminishing my creative potential. As I wrote in an earlier post:

Numerous studies and much accepted wisdom suggest that time spent doing nothing, being bored, is beneficial for sparking and sustaining creativity. With our iPhone in hand - or any smartphone, really - our minds, always engaged, always fixed on that tiny screen, may simply never get bored. And our creativity suffers.

Many readers, including many non-techies, agreed with this idea. Some did not. Others, perhaps acutely aware that having a smartphone always at their side, always available to help kill a few minutes of spare time where previously they were forced to observe the world around them, vowed to resist the incessant urge to always reach for their trusty mobile personal computer.

What about you?

Do you think your smartphone has harmed your creativity? Enhanced it? Or had no discernible impact? Take our poll above and feel free to elaborate on your opinion in comments.

Any Place Any Time

The average user spends more than two hours everyday on their smartphone. Some of that is spent talking with friends, family or colleagues. Some, no doubt, is likely work-related. But, as this recent study reveals, the bulk of our smartphone activity is, well, time-suck: Surfing, reading, playing, watching, tweeting...

In many ways, of course, this reveals the great triumph of the iPhone and its many imitators. We now possess a device that allows us to watch television, surf the web, listen to music, connect with friends, play a game - from any place, at any time. But all these "smartphone moments" are keeping our minds from wandering, preventing us from becoming bored, and keeping our brains fully engaged when they may require calm.  

We need to remember that there are benefits to boredom:

Psychologists from the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) have conducted research into the potential upsides of boredom and found that the time we spend daydreaming could improve our creative ability.

Readers Respond to the Original

The original "The iPhone Killed My Creativity" post spawned many comments. Here are a select few favorites.

For the creative drawback, phones can help spur creativity too. There has never been a better tool for quick iteration of ideas, for instant access to recording and editing ideas, and for collaboration.

You killed your creativity by choosing to always pull out your iPhone when you're bored. It's easy to blame technology, until you realize it's a tool you use and sits there unless you interact with it.

Our mobile digital devices are inherently addictive. In fact, they are designed to be addictive; plus, the tactile and personal nature of them means they "mean" more to us than a desktop computer. So, yes, for some people it is a tool they control. They elect when to pick it up and when to put it down. For others, the tool controls them. No different than cigarettes, booze or gambling. They can only pick it up until it damages their soul.

We are the first generation growing up with this digital appendage as part of our lives. We have very little knowledge about the downside of dividing our attention between digital space and meatspace on a continuous basis.

Our cognition and emotional attention spans are shrinking to a degree that cuts-off any ability to create. We can only consume. Perhaps someone will create an app to counter all this?

SMARTPHONE DESTROYS BOREDOM AND CREATIVITY. OBVIOUS ANSWER: INTERESTING APP THAT MAKE YOU MORE CREATIVE.

If a hot stove is burning your finger, take your finger off the stove.

I've noticed since getting an iPhone, I daydream less, and have to be more intentional about getting lost in my imagination instead of my little screen.

Image of adorable girl and butterfly courtesy of Shutterstock