Line25 Sites of the Week is a weekly roundup of the most outstanding website designs that I stumble across during my every day browsing. In this week’s collection, we have designs from Lukes Beard, Polecat, Keith Homemade Cakes, Sara Tušar Suhadolc and Pixel Fusion.
Apparently, Bill O’Reilly has never heard of the moon. In a debate Tuesday with Dave Silverman, head of the American Atheist group behind this , the Fox host tried to prove the existence of God by citing the unknowable mysteries of the tides. “I’ll tell you why [religion is] not a... Mike Tyson, pigeon fancier, gets his own TV show Reuters Former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson smiles as he gestures at a panel for the Animal Planet documentary ''Taking on Tyson'' during the Discovery Networks ... and more » |
We’ve already done a walkthrough of the new store. What follows is our analysis of the overall store experience after spending the past few hours exploring the store, downloading applications, comparing the release to initial expectations and ruminating on how it will change the developer ecosystem.
If you’ve yet to experience the Mac App Store, you’ll need to upgrade your Mac OS X software to version 10.6.6. Once you do, you’ll find the Mac App Store waiting for you in your dock. We encourage you to check it out for yourself and add your thoughts on the new store in the comments section below.
The Mac App Store is packed with more than 1,000 applications out of the gate. This vast collection of applications spans 21 different categories, and Apple has done an amazing job ensuring that the store feels boundless — in the sense that there are more apps than you could ever dream of — and is full of must-own applications. That is: there’s not a lot of fluff here (yet, anyways).
New, just-for-Mac apps like Angry Birds [App Store link] and Twitter [App Store link] are here. So too, are standbys from Apple (iLife) and the Omni Group, along side lightweight fare such as Caffeine [App Store link] and StuffIt Expander [App Store link]. Even Mashable [App Store link] has its own Mac app.
Apple has also wisely replicated its iTunes App Store “Top Charts,†“New and Noteworthy,†“What’s Hot,†and “Staff Favorites†lists in the Mac App Store. The Mac App Store home screen features these curated app catalogs, making quick app perusal and discovery a breeze.
Most retail and convenience stores stock small or inexpensive products near the register to appeal to customers waiting in line. This strategy creates a grab-and-go atmosphere where customers spend less time thinking about whether they actually need these products and instead make last-minute impulse buys.
Apple mastered the grab-and-go idea with the iTunes App Store and it’s done it again with the Mac App Store. It’s the ultimate model for impulse, grab-and-go shopping where consumers can forget about busting out their credit cards and stop fretting over whether an app is a wise investment.
The frictionless marketplace gives developers direct access to window shopping Mac users who, with just a click or two, can download their apps. It works because consumers have developed a blind faith (misguided or not) in Apple’s ability to create a marketplace of vetted applications. Gone are the days when Mac owners need to trouble themselves with going out of their way to search for apps; now the apps come to them. And while the strict application review process may trouble some developers, Apple’s seal of approval could mean the difference between an app that is relegated to obscurity and one that gets noticed.
Evernote, for instance, is already a top performer among free apps. Existing Evernote users likely knew of, and already downloaded, the Mac version for their desktops. The application’s prominence in the store, however, will likely introduce a whole new audience to the startup’s note-taking and productivity platform. Today, Evernote [App Store link] is seeing an 1800% increase in Mac registrations over a normal day, according to a representation for the company. For a nearly three year-old startup, this kind of exposure could prove instrumental in expanding its user base faster and converting free users into more engaged, paid users.
Plus, while it may be anecdotal, the mere structure of the store — glossy photos, user reviews, top charts etc. — inspired me to purchase apps that I was previously aware of but too trigger-shy to purchase (Zipline and Pixelmator, for instance).
The Mac App Store houses applications for Mac owners to use locally on their desktops. The iTunes App Store houses applications for iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Apple makes that distinction relatively clear — it’s punctuated by a standalone store outside of iTunes, but its existence does complicate things a bit.
The less tech savvy user may be confused as to the difference between the apps they can find in the iTunes App Store and those they can find in the new Mac App Store. Many applications available are Mac duplicates with heftier price tags than their iOS counterparts, which only adds to the confusion.
When many Mac users update their OS software to 10.6.6, they many not understand why there’s an extra icon in their dock and why they’d want to purchase an application that resembles one they already own.
Apple makes it a priority to release hardware and software designed for the average Jane/Joe. While the Mac App Store product itself meets those standards, the way it was rolled out as a separate product may not.
A marketplace that can foster impulse purchases and downloads is a marketplace that will change the entire ecosystem around Mac applications. Mac users, on average, will buy more apps; developers will get exponentially higher exposure and revenues; and Apple’s line of iMacs and Mac Books will become even more appealing to computer purchasers.
As the ecosystem evolves, however, not every veteran Mac developer will appreciate the changes that are being force-fed to them. Developers will have much less control, may need to cave to Apple’s requests during the review process, will sacrifice 30% of revenue for placement and will not be allowed to charge for app upgrades. And, there’s still the outstanding question of how volume pricing will be handled.
Apple’s new Mac App Store could also drive the average market price for Mac applications downward, because price point will largely factor into total downloads and, by association, whether or not apps make the top charts and get featured more prominently. We’ve already seen that race to the bottom occur with iOS applications, where the average price of apps is around $4 (less if you include games).
For better or worse, things are changing. Realmac, makers of Mac apps like LittleSnapper [App Store link] (which I recommend), penned a post yesterday on some of the side effects of the Mac App Store it anticipates post launch. The software maker argues that apps will become more single purpose, upgrade pricing will never be a reality and apps will cheaper on average.
On the whole, however, Realmac concludes, “We think that the Mac App Store is likely to jump-start the already lively Mac developer community, and that developers would be crazy to either remain inflexible on the App Store or forego it altogether.â€
It’s a conclusion that seems sound based on my initial experience with Mac App Store.
- Apple Launches Mac App Store With More Than 1,000 Apps
- The Mac App Store: A Walkthrough [GALLERY]
- HOW TO: Fix “Error 100″ in the Mac App Store
- The Mac App Store: The Good, the Bad & the Unknown [Announcement Coverage]
Image courtesy of Realmac Software
More About: apple, developers, mac, mac app store, mac os x, realmac, software
For more Apple coverage:
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Fredrick Bond got together with Mass Market to give Huggies the Philips Carousel treatment. Despite its ironically gratuitous approach, the concept and tag definitely work. You are marketing to parents after all, so why not ditch the cute animated characters and have some fun with the execution.
Client/Product: Huggies Little Movers Diapers
Agency: JWT, New York
Executive Creative Director: Walt Connelly
Creative Director: Richie Glickman
Art Director: David Suarez
Copywriter: Daniel Gonzalez
Head of Art: Aaron Padin
Title Animation: Chadwick Whitehead
Director of Integrated Production: Clair Grupp
Director of Brand Production: Joe Calabrese
Senior Integrated Producer: Owen Katz
Assistant Producer: Mike McLoughlin
Business Director: Karyn Rockwell
Account Executives: Aissatou Balde, Raymond Lynch
Production Company: MJZ
Director: Fredrik Bond
Executive Producer: Lisa Margulis
Senior Executive Producer: Jeff Scruton
Producer: Nicholas Wrathall
DP: Hoyte van Hoytema
Visual Effects and Editorial: MassMarket, New York
Executive Producers: Rich Rama, Justin Lane
Producer: Nancy Nina Hwang
Associate Producers: Marcus Lansdell, Justin Romero
Editor: Cass Vanini
Lead Flame: David Parker
Senior Flame: Jamie Scott
CG Supervisor: Damon Ciarelli
CG Lead: Andy Jones
CG: Todd Akita, Jonah Friedman, Soo Hee Han, Xuan Siefert
CG Modeler: Tom Cushwa
CG Previz: Ian Brauner
Tracking Lead: Joerg Liebold
Tracking: Denis Trutanic
Flame: Joanne Unger
Junior Flame: Jeen Lee, Adam Flynn
Audio Post: JWTwo
Sound Mixer: Andy Green
Music Producer: Dan Burt
Audio Producer: Greg Tiefenbrun
Animation Company: Buck, New York
Executive Producer: Kate Treacy, Anne Skopas
Producer: Kevin Hall
Creative Director: Orion Tait
CG Supervisor: Lars Holmgren
3D Generalist: Kevin Couture, Arvid Volz, Dave Soto
CG Lead/Modeling/Comping: Ryan O’Phelan
Originally posted at Deep Tech
The 1998 paper that linked MMR vaccination with autism has had a long way to fall. It made, of course, a huge media sensation, and energized the whole vaccination/autism controversy that still (in spite of evidence) goes on. But it didn't look very robust from the start, scientifically. And over the years it's gone from "Really needs shoring up" to "hasn't been reproduced" to "looks like there's something wrong with it" to "main conclusions retracted" to the final, lowest level: outright fraud.
Here's a good history of the whole affair in the BMJ. And here's the first part of a series of articles by Brian Deer, the journalist who dug into the study and found how fraudulent it really was. Not one of the 12 cases in Wakefield's original study hold up; the data were manipulated in every single one to make it fit his hypothesis. His hypothesis that he was getting grant money for. His hypothesis that he was already planning lawsuits around, before the study even started.
His hypothesis, I might add, that has led to completely unnecessary suffering among the unvaccinated children this scare has produced over the years, and has diverted enormous amounts of time, energy, and money away from useful study of autism. This sort of deliberate action is really hard to contemplate, as a reasonable human being - it's like some sort of massive campaign to persuade people to throw bricks through the windows of ambulances.
In a better world, we'd be getting expressions of sorrow and contrition from all the celebrities and others who've profited from this business. But that's not going to happen, is it?