The iPad drawing app Paper has gotten a lot of attention in the past week. One of the interesting bits about Paper is that the app is free, and gives you access to one of the 5 available drawing tools. To access the others, you have to buy them for $1.99 each. So to get the full functionality of the app, it costs $8.

This doesn’t bother me, in fact I kind of like this model. You can try out the app for free, which is nice since there are no trials on the app store, and is preferable to me than having Paper Free or Paper Lite. If you don’t use the watercolor brush, you don’t pay for it, so the app is cheaper than it would be otherwise. This all makes sense to me as a user and developer, and seems like a good approach.

But there is a reason we don’t see this model more, and it’s because most users seem to hate this. They feel like they’re being ripped off, nickel and dimed for each piece of functionality.

A post on Macdrifter sums this up nicely:

I would have simply preferred an honest version of the app with all of the tools for a single price. Yes, through IAP, I can get all of the “essential” tools for one price. It feels sneaky to me though…

Here’s the rub with IAP: I’m left wondering if cut-and-paste as well as zoom were omitted only to be added as additional purchases. When an App is dependent on IAP, I’m doubtful that much attention will be given to updating the core functionality.

It’s a valid criticism, and I can see why it would make some users uneasy. Next time they release a new tool, I may have to cough up another $2. This free app might cost $50 after a while. If you look at the app store reviews, you’ll find the majority of the negative reviews of the app are really about the business model, which is a shame.

I’m a bit torn on this, between a better experience for the user and making things sustainable for the developer. Releasing a $0.99 app and supporting it for free forever is not feasible. Maybe the solution is in-app purchases or maybe paid upgrades or maybe built-in support for free trials. Regardless, it’s good to see developers experimenting, and hopefully we’ll find a nice middle ground.

I saw a blog post by tap tap tap a while back with a way to create user friendly links for redeeming iOS app promo codes. This is so much easier for the user than sending them a code and giving them precise instructions on the way to redeem it, especially if they’ve never done it before. You can send a link and they can get a free version of your app with one-click.

I hadn’t come across a way to do the same thing for the Mac App Store until yesterday, when I was downloading the Mountain Lion preview and saw how Apple did it. You can use the following format to send out promo code links for your MAS apps:

macappstores://buy.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZFinance.woa/wa/redeemLandingPage?code=YOUR_PROMO_CODE

Obviously, replace YOUR_PROMO_CODE with your promo code. If you don’t include the “?code=” portion, it will just open the redeem code landing page, which is pretty handy as well. Digging a little deeper, it seems the Mac App Store has two different URL schemes: “macappstore:” and “macappstores:”. The latter—with a trailing s—is for secure URLs. If you’re trying to direct link to something in the Mac App Store, and you get a “Cannot Connect to the App Store” error, try it with “macappstores:” instead.

I just submitted Flint 1.0 to the Mac App Store this morning. My goal was to finish it and submit by September 1st, 2011, and it took about 6 more weeks, which isn’t too bad all things considered. It was time well spent. I got more beta testers, added a few more nice features, and fixed a lot of bugs. But still, I had more that I wanted to do. I just kept thinking about adding one more little thing, one more tweak.

Whenever I’m at that stage of a product, I think of two quotes. The first is the famous quote by Steve Jobs, which conveys so much for being so succinct. In light of Steve’s recent passing, it takes on a new urgency for me to build and create and put things out there.

“Real artists ship.”
– Steve Jobs

The other that I always come back to is this tweet:

An engineer will endlessly tinker with a project as long as it’s sitting in front of them. Endlessly.

— rands (@rands) October 12, 2008

If I knew Rands personally, I would have thought he wrote it about me, as I’m particularly prone to that behavior. It’s never good enough for me, there is always more to do, more features to add, more bugs to fix, it will never be finished. So it’s a question I always have to ask myself while at the end of a product, am I improving or just tinkering? If I’m tinkering, it’s time to ship.

I think I should get posters of both of those quotes and hang them above my desk.

Every time Apple releases a new product, it becomes more and more clear that no other company really gets it. The next war for winning consumers’ hearts - in both hardware and software - will not be based on tech specs, but on usability and user experience. Computers are already way faster than the majority of people need. Things like the iPhone and iPad don’t even mention specs like processor speed or RAM anymore because it really doesn’t matter. What matters is the experience. Apple understands this, and has been growing by leaps and bounds the last few years because this is what they do best.

Take for example the difference in the remotes between the Apple TV and Google TV:

Apple TV remote. A simple 6-button remote that’s easy to use and hold. Even if you weren’t sure what each button does, you could figure it in a few seconds.

Sony - Google TV remote. A monstrosity of a remote, jam packed with a ton of buttons and full qwerty keyboard. This remote looks like it can fly a RC helicopter and should also print labels. I can’t imagine that it’s intuitive, even for the techiest folk among us.

Logitech - Google TV remote. A desktop-size keyboard with built-in track pad. Even in the staged photo, it looks awkward to hold and use. 80% of it’s size is the keyboard though you probably only use that about 5% of the time. Also, I have no idea why you would build anything remotely resembling a mouse-driven interface for this kind of device.

The designers of the Google TV remotes seem to be just trying to shove a keyboard and mouse into a different package. I haven’t used a Google TV, but based on these remotes, I would bet the rest of the interface is just as clunky.

On the other hand, I can see the Apple designers starting from scratch, sitting down on their couches in their living rooms and imagining what they would want to use. What would be comfortable to hold in your hand while flipping through apps/channels? Can I easily perform the basic functions with one hand? What would you want sitting on your coffee table? Would you feel comfortable tossing the remote across the room? You know, real-world usability testing.

This kind of design thinking seems so basic, I don’t understand how no other company¹ can get it.

¹ Of course I’m generalizing here. Apple isn’t the only company to get it. Lot’s of other companies do, but just not any of the big players. Boxee for example, is another player in the set-top box space, and they seem to get it as well.

After many months of rumors and speculation, Apple finally unveiled the iPad. Almost all the questions have now been answered, but a lot of people are asking, what do I use it for? If I have an iPhone and a Macbook Pro, where does this fit in? I can’t answer that for everyone, but I can tell you why I’m planning on getting one.

I’ve been thinking about this device for a while, and my line of thought has been, if this is a big iPhone/iPod Touch, what apps do I currently use on my iPhone that would benefit from the larger screen? Of all the apps, only Safari, Reeder, Tweetie, and Instapaper really stick out. And that’s just because those are text-heavy apps used for reading, and that is the iPhone’s weakpoint. Take those apps, and add in the Kindle app and iBooks, and I’m already sold. Even just as a glorified web browser, feed reader, e-book reader, it’s enough for me to buy one.

The problem is I follow a lot of feeds, and send a lot of stuff to Instapaper throughout the day, but I don’t have a good way to consume it. I don’t want to sit at my desk and read it. I don’t want to sit with my scorching Macbook Pro on my lap that after 4 years, only gets about 45min of battery life. I don’t want to unplug it from my external monitor/keyboard and move the one power adapter I have. So the only option left is to use my iPhone, which works, but is far from ideal. The iPad fits in perfectly here: lightweight, long battery life, instant on, beautiful screen, and plenty of apps to download and present content in an ideal way.

So for me, the iPad is first and foremost, a reader. I’m sure I’ll watch movies on it when I’m traveling, play some games, and use the other apps, but that will be secondary. However, I do think that some real interesting ideas come not from thinking about what iPhone apps would be useful larger, but what desktop apps would benefit from multi-touch and added mobility. Seeing the iWork apps shows that Apple is serious about having complex and powerful applications on it. I can’t wait to see what people come up with, especially the kind of futuristic, concept interfaces used in movies.

As a side note, I’m planning on getting the cheapest, $499 16GB version without 3G. Getting the $829 model is a bit out of the range of a device mostly used for leisure. And I don’t think I really need that much space anyway. I don’t need my whole music library on there since I have my iPhone, and I’ll probably only put movies/tv shows on there to watch when I’m traveling. The only sticking point is 3G. I don’t travel that much, and don’t think I’d use it often, but it will be nice to have the option if I needed it. Having no contract, month-to-month 3G plans makes me consider it, but I don’t think it’s worth the extra $130.