I found this little gem via Daring Fireball.  It’s a segment of an interview with Alfred Hitchcock, wherein he describes his definition of happiness.  It’s all about creativity for him; here’s the nugget from the end:

“…but when all these (negative influences) are removed and you can look forward and the road is clear ahead, and now you’re going to create something, well, that’s as happy as I would ever want to be.”

I totally agree; I am never happier than when I am breaking new creative ground.

That being said, I have heard stories (though I can’t find a good citation, fwiw) that Hitchcock was an absolute terror as a director.  He certainly got good work out of his cast and crew, but it’s interesting to contrast the innocence of his desire and the reality that his pursuit of happiness may have severely affected the happiness of others.

OK, so I’m diving into native iOS programming again.  I really like PhoneGap, and I’ll probably continue to use it for some projects, at least for prototyping, but I look at the simplicity of some of the iOS code for doing some pretty complex stuff, and I realize that if I’m going to do the same stuff in Javascript, I’m going to need to build some pretty complex libraries, or learn some other existing JS frameworks.  And either way, as much as I love HTML/Javascript as a development environment, it looks like doing the kind of things I want would take just as much work on that route as would learning native iOS coding.

Of course, that’ll make things more complex if I want to support Android devices, but I’ll cross that bridge when I get there.  I figure if I have something successful enough to port to Android, I can work with an established Android dev to do that sort of thing.

So my first hurdle is the MVC concept.  I’ve done small MVC projects, mostly in web-based information management, where it was pretty easy to divide up the silos and keep things separate.  But as I’m watching Hegarty discuss his examples, it’s not always clear to me how he identifies all the components and divvies them up.  Of course, these are examples he’s used for years, so I’m not actually watching the sausage being made, but I’d be interested in getting that sort of guidance.

So my question is, are there any good resources for this?  I’m looking for a sort of ten-commandments of MVC document, as well as maybe some exercises where there’s a project specification and a bunch of objects to push into one category or another, with a key to consult to see my mistakes and understand the underlying logic behind the solution that’s considered optimal.

Like I say, I have a basic understanding of MVC concepts, but I don’t think I live and breathe that sort of orthodoxy, and I know a lot of my code has less-than-ideal crosstalk.  I figure now, in the context of learning iOS, is a good a time as any to solidify this practice.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Short answer: I don’t know.

Another short answer: probably not.

But it’s an intriguing idea, which I first read about at MacRumors.  It seemed silly at the time, and people have derided it, but the idea has grown on me.

Being a bigger device, an iPad is more likely to be held further away from a user’s eyes than an iPhone, so to be a “retina” display, you don’t have to reach the same pixel density as the iPhone 4 (326 ppi).  At double the distance, 200 ppi would be more than enough, and that would just be about a 50% increase in density over today’s iPad screens.

Among other benefits, this would save costs.  For example, lower-density screens will be less expensive to manufacture, with higher production yields.

But this leads to two problems: if you’re only increasing pixel density 50%, then if you keep the same chassis size, then your overall resolution doesn’t go up by the convenient factor of two, which would allow current apps to scale nicely without a lot of work from developers.  I’ll add links later, but this point has been covered by well-respected folks like John Gruber and Marco Arment, and I feel it’s extremely likely that Apple agrees with them that the next jump in iPad resolution, if there is one, would be to double the current resolution.

The other thing is that driving more pixels in the same form factor means that you’re changing the delicate hardware/performance/battery life balance.  Apple is not going to release a Pro device which is not as fast as current devices, nor one that has a shorter battery life.  I’ll bet on that one.  They could also increase the thickness of the device for better battery, but I wouldn’t put any money on that.

So the answer to both of those challenges which allows for…

• increasing the pixel density to 200 ppi,
• doubling the X and Y resolutions (4x total pixels)
• and maintaining or increasing performance and/or battery life

…would be to increase the device size by a little over 30% to 12.8” diagonal.

This would result in a device that’s still small enough to carry around and use informally like an iPad, with the higher specs that would allow for the “Pro” label.

So why would anyone want a bigger tablet instead of moving towards a laptop for greater processing power?  My thought is towards professional and prosumer media creation tools.  They’ve already released iMovie and Garage Band for the iPad, and those products—especially Garage Band—have done extremely well for them.  Additionally, most people who use an iPad have at least some photos on them which they manage through the Photos app.  However, with a larger, higher-resolution, more powerful model, they could conceivably release an iOS version of Final Cut Pro, of Logic Pro and of Aperture to allow for even greater flexibility and more intricate control.

More workspace.  True HD.  Faster, more intuitive tools.  It’s all possible.

I’m not convinced that this is the future of the iPad, but stop for a second and think, what if?

I saw a Droid commercial that was supposed impress me.  With amazing graphics, there was an intricate interweaving of images, tasks, games, music and more.  Enough to show me that the latest Android device was thoroughly capable of blowing my mind.

Unfortunately, the thought echoing in my head as the commercial came to a close was, “Wasn’t that what they promised with the last model?”

This is one of the key issues with the Android device market, in general.  With Apple, you get an incremental improvement in a device that’s already “good enough” each year, accompanied by marketing that shows you exactly how the new device is going to change your life.  If you’re not rich, you wait for a second year and get a nice performance bump between devices.

With Android, even given a single manufacturer, the hardware specification race is so fast and so furious that you can’t go more than six months without feeling that your device is outdated.  And with half a dozen big name manufacturers competing in the Android space, and many more little names, it’s pretty much impossible to go more than a week without something better being announced or going on sale.

What this reminds me of is when Apple was Jobs-less.  I remember wanting to buy a new Mac, and models with similar names (Quadra, Performa, Centris), numbers (650, 750, 850) and cases all had interleaving pluses and minuses.  One had a faster bus but a slower processor.  Another had more capacity for RAM but came with a smaller hard drive.  Another had everything you wanted, but had no electric power options, as it ran only on unicorn tears.

I remember a constant feeling of vague dissatisfaction, even as I pushed forward with the purchasing decision process.  Two dozen models available with no clear, linear progression among them as to which was the best deal for my dollar.  I remember walking out of the store with a Quadra 650 and immediately having regrets, although the thing lasted me for a good five years.  I just always wondered if I had made the best decision.

Since Jobs’ return, the product line has cleaned up nicely.  An all-in-one, a low-end and high end desktop, a low- and high-end laptop.  A progression of iPods based on size and features.  Last year’s iPhone, this years’ iPhone and the current iPad.

For Android devices, it’s just not the same.  Hundreds of different devices with different OS versions, different carrier-specific software, access to various different app markets, and a huge range of processor, RAM and accessory options.

Android devices may be outselling those with iOS, but there are a lot of manufacturers competing for those customers.  Unless one or a couple of them can find a way to inspire a level of brand loyalty, and unless they can all work together to ensure that consumers can get some benefit out of OS loyalty, there’s a chance that a lot of those current Android users will try iOS one day and likely find themselves more comfortable staying there.

More and faster may seem better, but in the Android device market, it means that your customer may or not be yours the next time they have to make a purchasing decision. 

The latest news from RIM (low shipment numbers, reduced average selling price, tiny margins compared to history, layoffs) started me thinking about how someone might successfully compete against the iPad.

While some of the new tablets are seeing marginal success (Samsung Galaxy Tab, Motorola Xoom), neither are anywhere near toppling the iPad in terms of sales, nor in terms of actual use.  RIM may have shipped 500,000 playbooks, but I don’t see them reflected in my own server logs.

The thing to remember is that the iPad wasn’t created overnight.  By Steve Jobs’ own account, the concept for the iPad was there before that of the iPhone, but the phone was released first because it had the greater likelihood of success, of introducing some of the touch-interface concepts whose acceptance would make or break the iPad.

And to make the iPhone succeed, they needed to make the iPod first.  And before the iPod they had to make iTunes.

In short, it was years and years of planning.  I remember when Apple released iTunes, I thought it was silly: there were dozens of other media management programs that were similar or better.  But theirs was free so I gave it a try and liked it.  Nearly each of the following product and service releases were questionable at the time, but what they did was they made a really solid, interdependent ecosystem which would provide low barrier to entry, an easy way for people to spend their money and extreme ‘stickiness’ keeping people from jumping ship.

But I’ve written about all that before.  Now, the question is, how do you beat the iPad?

The first thing is that you don’t do it overnight.  I cringe every time I see a new hardware vendor touting their slapped-together device which mimics the iPad in every way except the ways that matter.

But that doesn’t mean that you let Apple simply run away with the market.  Instead,  you find a way to gain from Apple’s success.

If I were in Microsoft’s Office division, I would be working on simplified touch-based versions of office applications to facilitate on-the-move access to documents.

If I were in Microsoft’s XBox division, I would be working on games and game-accessory software.  Imagine if you could allow friends to watch your Halo tournaments on XBox live from their iPads, either seeing what you’re seeing, or allowing them to walk around the virtual grounds and choose their own views.

If I were Red Hat, I would be creating the best server management tools with the easiest-to-use interfaces.  Same with Oracle for databases, and any number of other vendors who make hardware and software for the datacenter.

And I guess RIM falls under that last category.  If they can provide simple, touch-based tools for managing a Blackberry Enterprise Server, they could certainly sell a version of it for the iPad.  But there are other options, as well.  Apple has, to some degree, beaten them to the punch with iMessage, but if they built an iOS version of their BBM system to allow people to keep in touch with their Blackberry-using network when on an iOS device, that may help them keep mindshare while they’re trying to figure out the next step.

And that next step is the hard part: it’s figuring out how to extend what they’ve embraced.  It may be that some companies simply decide to stay out of the tablet fray for the time being and either shore up the products which are in their legacy expertise.  Others may simply go for the next big thing, something that is so powerful while so portable and simple to use that it blows the iPad out of the water.  But if you’re going to stay in the fray, you’ve got to find some way to stand out.

Taking the embrace-extend idea further, for some companies—Red Hat, say—hardware isn’t their competence, so if they build some server management tools that run great on the iPad, they needn’t necessarily go further.  However, they could indeed work with an OEM—say, Acer—to build a dedicated device that they could sell or even give away as an incentive for higher service levels.

RIM’s idea with the Playbook was that they only wanted to release a tablet that was an accessory for their Blackberry phones.  While it hasn’t met with immediate success, it’s not necessarily a terrible idea.  Unfortunately, doing it without the appropriate preparation means that everyone was expecting an iPad-killer and all they could see about the Playbook was what it was not.

Releasing Blackberry software for the iPad would allow them to show how useful a tablet would be alongside their phones and servers, and then they could show how the tight integration of their own hardware makes the Playbook an even better device specifically for their market.

The issue is that right now, the market for general purpose tablets is divided into the iPad and everyone else.  While technology allows for convergence, if your tablet is just yet another general purpose computing device with a touch screen, you’re going to have to stand out from a very big crowd to even take any of the “everyone else” market.  To take any of the iPad’s share you’re going to have to do even better.

In a recent blog post, iOS developer Marco Arment talks about his recent decision to remove the free version of his app, Instapaper, from the App Store.  He cites a number of reasons for its removal and the low likelihood of its return to the store, including the challenges of maintaining multiple versions, higher issue/complaint rates for users of the free version, and last but not least, the fact that removing it led to no complaints, and even a modest jump in sales of the paid app.

The conclusion that he came to was that effectively, the free version was not adding value to his business.  Assuming that is true, my question is this: did it not add value because free versions inevitably appeal only to people who are not planning on buying the app anyway, or is it because he chose an implementation which did not draw people in and convert them into buyers.

It’s my theory that the latter is the case.

If you’re not familiar with Instapaper, you should check it out.  It’s a simple, useful app which, combined with a bookmarklet in your browser and a web service, allows you to save web pages for later perusal.  If you find an interesting article just before leaving the office, just click on the bookmarklet in your computer’s browser, Marco’s servers will get a copy of the page, and the next time you run the app on your iOS device, it’ll download a copy for you to read on your commute or while you are sipping your martini upon your return home.

I downloaded the free version when it was available, and I’ve used it a number of times, but while users of the paid version often refer to it as a must-have, a huge time saver, a game changer, and other massively positive descriptions, I find that it’s something I need to think about if I’m going to use it.

The issue is that it only allows the capture of up to ten pages for reading, so if I haven’t read everything in my queue, I have to consider whether I want the next page more than what I think is in my queue before clicking, or if I want to be sure, I have to log in to my Instapaper account to see what’s there and maybe clear out the queue.

My theory is that at its core, the defining feature of Instapaper is not the articles you read, but rather its incredible ease of use: its message is that you shouldn’t have to think about it.

As such, with a ten article limit, the free version is a fundamentally different app, one that does not demonstrate the true usefulness of the paid app.  It is very easy to look at the free version and think that it’s a clever idea, but not be motivated to download the paid version.

I think that when people find something truly useful, they are likely to want to pay for it, and the purpose of a free version of an app is to get as many people as possible hooked on a product and convince them to buy.  As such, it seems possible to me that Marco could gain some added value from a free version if he changed it to:

• Remove the limitations, so that it is every bit as useful as the paid app.
• Add in a simple reminder that there is a paid app available that doesn’t have a reminder.

A lot of people don’t like ads in their free apps, and for general advertising, I agree.  I don’t need to see ads about dating web sites, Axe perfume, or some car that I’m never going to buy.  They are distracting to the user, and unless I’m a real aberration, they don’t provide value to the advertiser.  When advertisers realize this, any value they provide to the developer will dry up relatively quickly.

But ads for a free app’s paid version are by definition targeted towards their audience.  They should should show often enough to remind people to upgrade if they are using the app a lot, but rarely enough not to turn off people who are not yet addicted.  For example, the ad could wait for the first six hours of use to show up for the first time, every hour after that for the next six hours, then ratcheting down every six hours by five minutes (i.e. show it every 25 minutes, 20, 15, 10, then five).

By the time it’s showing every five minutes of use, the likely buyers would be addicted and thinking about buying, and anyone who is not likely to buy might get annoyed enough that they stop using the service, thereby lowering the cost associated with their activity.

As for me, I keep thinking, “I’d like to mark this for reading later.  I should really get the paid version.”  So I finally upgraded today, and I’ve already added a half-dozen pages to my list.  For less than the cost of a meal basket at Burgerville, I’m off and running!

As a footnote, I’d like to add that there is a high value to a good blog.  I found Marco’s blog when I got Instapaper Free, and while I didn’t feel the immediate need to buy the app that day, I did bookmark his site, and I check back at least a few times a week.  It’s well-written and insightful, and while there is indeed stuff about his own products there, he writes about a wide range of things which keep me coming back.  It kept Instapaper in my mind as a very useful app in a way that the free version, with its limitations, simply did not.

A friend was asking around about how best to use his new Nikon, so I figured I’d write this up to help codify my own knowledge, and to give him some starter tips.  I know a bunch of awesome photographers, so feedback and corrections are welcome!

Why use an SLR over a snapshot camera?

My feeling is that snapshot cameras are really good enough for the great majority of pictures one might take.  Since everything is digital these days, throw in a little Photoshop, and you can have amazing results.

Moreover, it’s often said that the best camera is the one you have on you, and a snapshot camera is more likely to be in your pocket than your SLR unless you’re a professional photographer or a serious hobbyist.

But in the end, if you’re getting serious about great pictures, an SLR will give you more control, and with some practice, much better quality than a snapshot camera will.  The simplest example, in my experience, is reduced shutter lag.  Every snapshot camera I have ever used has at least a half-second delay from the time you squeeze the button to the time it actually takes the shot.  A good SLR will allow you to take that first shot within a tiny fraction of that time, and may even allow you to take half a dozen more shots before a second has passed.  If you’ve ever missed that perfect shot, that’s enough of a reason to move to an SLR.

What are the accoutrements I need?

For lenses, most beginners will do well with one or two zoom  lenses that allow them to get from 28mm-200mm.  Those lenses are typically pretty inexpensive and often come with a camera kit, and are high enough quality that you’ll immediately notice the improvement over a snapshot camera.

As your skills improve, you might find yourself wanting to get a few more specialized lenses.  Nature and sports photographers may want large zoom lenses; portrait artists may want a very fast prime lens.  Journalists may want a veritable arsenal of lenses to have available for whatever assignment calls.  When you’re ready to move beyond the kit, think of it as an investment.  Treated well, that lens will likely outlast your camera, maybe even several cameras.  Every dollar you put into your glass will show up in your pictures.

For cases, my personal feeling is that less is more.  I rarely change lenses mid-stream, and I don’t do set-up shots so hauling around any extra gear is just a hassle.  In fact, I find that if I put the camera into a case, I’m far less likely to pull it out when that perfect picture is coming.  Instead, I just keep my camera on its strap, and in case of inclement weather, I sometimes bring a plastic baggie, all I need to protect it.

The strap, however, is key.  I’m a big guy, and if I’m moving around, I don’t want the camera on my chest or stomach, so I got a big strap which allows me to carry my camera bandolier-style.  It stays out of my way when I don’t need it, but it’s ready and available when it comes time to take that shot.  I’d take a long strap and a plastic bag over a case any day.

Finally, memory cards.  They’ve gotten cheap enough that it’s worthwhile to buy a bunch of them and use them for an additional layer of back-up.  Some people re-use their memory cards over and over again, clearing them when they dump their photos off to a computer, but having a back-up is key, and with compression enabled, you can fit hundreds of pictures on a dollar’s worth of memory card.  There’s no reason to cheap out.

Also, remember to get cards that are fast enough for your camera.  They come in different speeds, and it’s possible that when shooting multiple shots in a row, that could be a bottleneck that causes you to miss a shot.

What are all these settings?

The job your camera and lens are doing for you is that of capturing light.  Given a set amount of light reflecting off of your subject (we’ll talk about flashes later), there are three features on your camera that allow you to control how much light is getting to its sensor.  Get too little and your picture is underexposed, dark and muddy. Get too much and it’s overexposed.

The three features are:

• Aperture, or how wide the iris of the lens is open to allow light in. 
• Shutter speed, or how long the lens is open, allowing light onto your camera’s sensor.
• Sensitivity, or the sensor’s equivalent of film speed.

If you increase the aperture when taking a particular shot, you could reduce the shutter speed and/or sensor sensitivity and have the same amount of light.  Similarly, if you decrease any of these but want the same amount of light to come into the system, you will need to increase one or both of the others.

But it’s not as simple as that.  Each of these features controls some quality of the photo you are taking as well.

Aperture and depth of field.

A pin-hole camera has a tiny aperture, but has infinite depth of field, which is why it does not need a lens in order to capture things near and far in good focus.  A lens with a wide open aperture has a very narrow depth of field, so it would be possible, for example, to do a close up shot where someones’s eyes are in focus, but their ears and the tip of their nose are not.

Note, depth of field increases over distance, so if you’re only shooting broad landscapes, this isn’t as important.  But if you want to catch that squirrel but have the cat that’s stalking him be out of focus, a wide aperture will give you that effect.

The aperture is controlled with the F-Stop setting.  I’m not certain, but I think that the F in F-Stop refers to the “Field” in depth of field.  Whether that’s right or not, the point is that a high-numbered F-Stop means a smaller aperture and thus a larger depth of field.  If your lens goes down to F1.4, for example, that’s going to allow you to have extremely narrow depth-of-field in your shots.

Also note, with zoom lenses, as you zoom in, the effective aperture reduces and the F-Stop increases.  Even if you are not changing a physical F-Stop setting, the act of zooming means that you’re taking a narrower and narrower cone of light into the lens, so a modern camera will report to you what your effective F-Stop is as you zoom.  If you have a 28-80mm lens that indicates that it’s F2.4, for example, that would only apply at the 28mm setting; at 80mm, it’s more likely to be around F4.0.

Shutter speed

If you want clinical accuracy, faster is better.  With an extremely fast camera, with enough light, you could count the dirt clods kicked up by the winner of the Kentucky Derby as it crosses the finish line.

But if you want to instead convey the speed of that horse, having a slower shutter speed would allow you to infuse the picture with motion while still getting a great shot of the finish.

In still other scenarios—set-up shots to capture a night sky, for example—a long shot is necessary because of limited light.  Alternately, you might choose an extremely long exposure with ratcheted down aperture and sensitivity if you wanted to only capture the stationary objects in a scene, allowing cars, people and other transient objects to flow through effectively unnoticed by the camera.

Note, of course, that for most people, having a shot longer than 1/15 of a second means they need a tripod or some other means of stabilizing the camera.  Some people feel more comfortable at 1/25s or shorter.

Sensitivity and grain.

Just like with film, greater sensitivity means grainier shots.  It’s pretty much as simple as that.  Different cameras exhibit this phenomenon in different ways; some look great up to ISO 1600.  Others start to degrade above 400.  That being said, the grain isn’t always a bad thing; sometimes it’s just what you need to soften a shot.  It’s just another factor to consider when planning your picture. 

Put it all together.

I’ll try to come up with some good examples, but here’s a basic wrap-up.

If you want a wide depth of field, you’ll have to increase your F-Stop setting, which reduces the aperture of the lens, and thus the light coming in.  That means that, if the light was right with a wider aperture, you’ll need to either slow down the shot (reduce the shutter speed) or increase the camera’s sensitivity.  The former will increase motion-related blur, and the latter will increase graininess in the final shot.  Depending on the results you want, you might increase one, the other, or both to a lesser degree.

Your camera will allow you to choose whether to do everything automatically, everything manually, or to choose aperture priority or shutter speed priority based on whatever ISO settings you have in place.  The best way to learn what works is to play around with them and find what you like.

Your camera may also have auto-bracketing features, which will allow you to test multiple exposures in successive shots.  For example, you might lock down your ISO and your shutter speed, and then when you shoot something three shots go off at slightly varying apertures.

Finally, the newest cameras have HDR built in, which is a feature that allows them to take two successive shots at slightly different exposures, and through some digital black magic, provide you with a composited picture that combines the best-exposed parts of both.

Film is cheap.

My high school photography teacher told us, “Shoot, shoot, shoot.  Film is cheap.”  Digital film is even cheaper.  If you’re not sure, shoot it.  Keep it.  Come back to it in a few years.  You may find gems that you didn’t even know were there.

Getting RAW.

If you’re serious about your pictures—if you’re going to publish them in a magazine or print them in large format for display—shoot in RAW format, which is uncompressed for better editing.  The two downsides to RAW shooting are that the file size is much much, much bigger, and in turn, that can slow down your camera.  You may not be able to hit six RAW shots per second without enabling compression.

If you’re not planning to publish, then JPEG compression is probably good enough, and it’ll allow you to get ten times the number of pictures on a card, and again, it’ll be much faster.

What about the actual art of photography?

There’s much too much to talk about there to cover here.  A friend pointed me to a great article on composition, and another on lighting.  Start there, but there are lots of other great resources on the web.  And again, shoot, shoot, shoot.  You’ll learn what you like.

What were you going to say about the use of a flash?

In short, if you aren’t doing a big set-up shot, and if you can avoid it, I don’t recommend using the flash.  Natural light with a wider aperture, higher sensitivity or slower shutter speed is usually much nicer than using the camera’s on-board flash.  Even a hot-shoe mounted flash is not ideal unless it is fairly large and has a really nice diffuser.

The reason is that with the flash mounted so close to the lens, you’re bathing your subject in glaring direct light that doesn’t look at all natural.  If your subject is a person (or an animal, for that matter),  you’re likely to get red-eye reflections and any number of other artifacts which need to be edited out.

Sometimes, if you’re in bright sunlight and you just want to be able to remove some shadows without totally rearranging the shot, a fill flash is nice, but relying on that flash for lower-light situations means that you’re going to get point-and-shoot quality shots out of your nice SLR.

Last, but not least, a flash is disruptive.  Sometimes a great picture can only happen when the subject is not aware of its being taken.  If that flash is going off, you have one chance for that picture, and then it’s possible that you might interrupt something—say, a child’s sleep—that you hadn’t intended to.  Except in rare circumstances, I leave my flash fully off and unavailable.

So the old canister vac finally bit the dust.  18 years old, and the hose sprung a leak.  We decided to go for one of those new-fangled (semi-new-fangled?) bagless vacs.  Not a Dyson because, well, that would have come out of the caviar budget.  We got a Eureka with special pet attachments, and it works great.

I’m convinced that at least 10% of the improvement is that it’s an upright, so I don’t have to do any work to push the nozzle down on the carpet.  Another 40% of the improvement is probably the technology: newer, stronger, better design, nice filter system.  But I think the rest is brilliant psychology.  The machine actually has me working for it.

With the old one, the bag was hidden away, and there were costs associated with replacing it.  First, you had to check to see if it was full, then you had to find the bags in storage, then you had to replace the darn thing.  If you were out, you had to remember to buy some.  And then they actually cost money.  What did that mean?  Well, mostly, it meant you weren’t going to bother checking until the darn thing had pretty much stopped sucking because the bag was so full.

With this new one (and all of its ilk), the dust bucket (or whatever they call it) is visible and clear, and it practically shouts to be emptied when the stuff gets choked up.  the cost for doing so is almost nothing: there’s no bags to buy or dig up; you know exactly how full it is, and it takes about two snaps to undo it.  It’s even mildly rewarding to see how much junk you’ve picked up in a few moves of the vacuum.  And when you’ve got a dog as big as mine, it adds up quickly!

So while I respect the technical improvements, it seems to me quite likely that the extra cleanings it gets helps ensure that suction is always at its best, which makes for an even better clean.  It’s a simple, brilliant change to the interface design.  I wonder what other devices would benefit from showing, rather than hiding, the less pleasant aspects of their core features.

I was going to write a manifesto on why it is that no tablets or slates have had anywhere near the success that the iPad has, but it’s been covered many times over by the likes of Marco Arment, John Gruber, Andy Ihnatko and more.  So I won’t go into detail, but the key points are, in no particular order:

• Lack of differentiation: “As good as an iPad!” isn’t good enough to beat the incumbent.
• Lack of a cohesive ecosystem: Love iTunes or hate it, they make it very easy for users to buy apps, content and services.
• Fragmentation: Some will argue this point, but the most successful iOS app developers perceive this to be the case with Android, and to some degree perception is reality.
• Android users love “free”: iOS app developers are happily making their incomes by selling apps, and a much smaller percentage of Android users are willing to pay for what they download.

There are other issues, but I think these are the key points.  Until they’re resolved for Android (or WebOS or other tablet OSes), no amount of good design, top-shelf technical specifications, or even cost-cutting will get people to buy other devices in similar numbers to what’s being seen for iPads.  Perhaps free or almost free devices will do the trick, but that’s not sustainable, and unless the latter three issues are resolved, people may take a free device, but they won’t necessarily use it.

As has been noted elsewhere, there are clues that Amazon may be trying to sneak in an iPad competitor based on the Kindle platform and their store infrastructure, and it might be more successful; we’ll see.

But the point of my post is not to hash over all this ground over and over again, but really to put forward my hope that a good competitor arises over the next few months.  I think that the iPad is a great product and the associated ecosystem is amazing and a great experience for users, but there’s no reason that a little competition couldn’t make it better.  Or that competitor could even provide a better experience and take over.

I think many of the pundits who are so bullish on the iPad feel the same way.  When people put down the latest Android tablet from Samsung or Motorola or whoever, it’s not so much that they don’t want to succeed; it’s just that they’re disappointed that yet another vendor is building something that amounts to an also-ran product.