TechWeek

People have reasons when they switch to Macs. Mine was so I don't have to fiddle around with so many optimization software, having to deal with unstable systems, and to avoid dealing with virus, malware and the like.

The fact that everything about the Mac comes from the same people was an added bonus since that means I only have to deal with one tech support source most of the time. I'm all for that integration business.

Earlier this year a research was done by Mindset Media that shows Mac users are a particular bunch. Meaning we are much more specific regarding what we want, in how we do things and generally more demanding. Some consider that snobbery though. Whatever.

Anyway, are we demanding because we use Macs or do we use Macs because we're choosy? I ask this because I have made my position clear on several occasions (http://search.twitter.com/search?q=aulia%2C+firefox) about Firefox.

Background
I actually have used Firefox  a lot longer than a lot of you may think. I was a Firefox user from when it was called Phoenix way back in 2002 (Surprise!). Before then, I also used Chimera which then (sort of) split into Safari and Camino.

Firefox is a noble cause in providing a standards-compliant web browser out of the garbage that was the Netscape Communicator and Mozilla suite. The browser was clean, small, relatively fast, and very basic. Same goes with Chimera at that moment.

Being the original Mac browser based on Mozilla's Gecko engine, Chimera quickly became my secondary browser after Internet Explorer which at that time still came as the Mac's default browser. I also evangelized for Phoenix at work where I had it installed on every single Windows PC there. Yes, even at pre 1.0 release.

Even as I was rooting for Phoenix for Windows, I didn't really enjoy using it on my Mac, it felt like a direct port of a Windows app, not enough Macness. Regardless, I wanted Phoenix to be a great Mac browser so I was hopeful (little did I know 6 years later it was still no better than Camino)

So I closely followed each of the two Mozilla browsers and installed each major build within a week of their respective releases. Due to David Hyatt leaving to create Apple's Safari, Camino was left nearly ignored for almost a year while Firefox gained traction until its eventual 1.0 release in 2004. Camino didn't hit 1.0 until 2006.

One interface does not rule them all
The obsession to develop identical cross-platform experience made Firefox a great app for a lot of its users but for Mac users, it became one of the worst apps to use. This fixation left a lot of Mac features out of the browser such as keychain support for user ID and passwords, modifiable shortcut keys from System Preferences, standardized GUI and keyboard navigation, and no support for Services (includes lack of dictionary support).

All this remained until Mozilla launched 3.0 in June this year. I was pleased when they decided to have a completely different skin for the Mac version of Firefox (and for other platforms as well). This shows that the LotR approach (One interface to rule them all) does not make for an appealing browser.

Alex Faaborg explained the whole shift on his blog under the sub heading
"Why do We Believe Visual Integration is Important?"
http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2008/05/14/firefox-3-themes/

I applaud them for this move. This was the goal that they wanted to set with Firefox 1.5 when we were calling for an Aquafied release–which didn't eventuate even until Apple themselves dropped Aqua from Leopard. No it doesn't mean they were right in not implementing Aqua. They were still wrong because it meant Firefox did not look like an app that belonged in the OS people were using for a long time. It still barely does.

As explained above, Mac users can be a fastidious bunch. The smallest detail can be a major sticking point and a roadblock for the rest of the app no matter how wonderful it may be.

What'd I miss?
I suppose you can say I'm missing a lot by dismissing Firefox simply because of a (seemingly) cosmetic issue. However, what people find amazing and attractive about Firefox–which is the whole plug-ins, add-ons, and themes environment–does not attract me at all. I want a straight out browser that does well what a browser is supposed to do.

I'm not interested in a browser that tries to be a platform or anything else. The entire reason Firefox and Camino were created was because the Netscape–and then Mozilla–teams wanted to have a browser that's not a bloatware, compliant with web standards, fast, and easy to use. Team Flock turned this anti-bloatware goal on its head and came out with a more complex browser than Firefox with an even more hideous interface that screams out like neon signs outside a casino.

All that jazz about extensions? Not interested. For what I do and the way I work (writing–or more appropriately tyipng), I see very little function in having them. I don't deny that I have them installed, I have DTA, TwitKit, TwitterBar and TwitterFox that doesn't seem to work on 3.0.1.

I do like the search bar because it has options for searching on other sites such as IMDB, Wikipedia, Amazon, a bunch of dictionaries, and a host of others but after using Safari for an extended period, I don't miss it. Safari's exclusively Google search displays a lot of my results on page 1 so I don't really miss is so much.

Much has been made about Safari's lack of anti-phising measures which actually was in the early builds of Safari 3 and even made it to a Stevenote last year. Apple for some reason pulled it out of the final build and is yet to be back in Safari 4 dev preview or in the WebKit nightlies. This doesn't make Safari any less safe.

http://www.macworld.com/article/134851/2008/08/safariphish.html

Rob Griffiths in that Macworld article suggests that Safari is no less secure than Firefox for not having the feature. In fact it is just as secure, you're just not being warned about it.

I'd say that the anti-phising alert in Firefox is like the parking or proximity sensor in cars. useful but if you know your way around parking your car, you won't need it. Suggestions to drop Safari for Firefox just because it doesn't have proximity sensor is absolute rubbish.

You've learned to drive without it, so it makes little difference. In fact, you have your own parking style and preferences that often you'd turn the alerts off anyway because instead of helping, it gets in the way.

State of the browser
Out of the box (or in this case .dmg), Firefox is still a funny looking browser that doesn't really belong on a Mac. They're getting there but we still have to wait. As I mentioned on Twitter, Firefox needs braces. I thank the people behind GrApple theme at http://www.takebacktheweb.org/ for filling the gaps (pun absolutely intended :D).

Firefox guys, why don't you buy this guy out, hire him or license his themes for your default Mac skin? That large back button is such an eyesore (yea, use the small icons but it should be by default).

http://daringfireball.net/2008/04/firefox_3_safari_3
http://www.sanneblad.se/johan/?p=180

John Gruber and Johan Sanneblad elaborated in gory details pretty much every reason why I'm not a fan of Firefox. Arguably, there may have been changes in the final 3.0 and even 3.0.1 (I haven't read the change list) that I may not have noticed and may have rendered some arguments invalid (because those reviews were done on release candidate builds).

As at today, Firefox 3.0.1 sits in my Applications folder as backup for Safari and Camino.

                               

Having forged a good relationship with Apple PR, they sent me a 16GB iPod touch for me to check out iPhone software 2.0 While they "robbed" me of the full experience by preloading it with 2.0, I'm happy not having to spend $10 to download the update :D

For those who have purchased an iPod touch in the last couple of months but unable to download the 1.1.x update to add Mail, Stocks, Maps, Notes, and Weather apps, it's because Apple apparently pulled it in anticipation of the 2.0 software. Purchasing and downloading 2.0 gives you all those four apps as well as the coveted AppStore, which in my opinion, is the real star of iPhone 3G.

WIFI
Having an iPod touch rocks. Problem is wifi is not freely available and most places in Jakarta that have wifi are commercialized–you gotta pay by the hour. I don't mind having to buy food to get wifi though especially when I'm gonna hang out for several hours anyway. I got 5 hours on full wifi before I had to recharge the iPod (3 hours for full recharge) but I haven't had the chance to use it without wifi off.

The reception is not great though. When my MacBook Pro has full signal reception, the iPod only got 2 out of 3 bars and I'm sitting roughly 10 meters from the AirPort Express. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to affect performance, which is crucial when you want to use the internet. The iPhone has EDGE as well as UMTS and HSDPA on the 3G model but iPod touch only has WiFi so make sure you can find a wireless hotspot before you do anything internet-related on with the iPod touch.

Without WiFi, your iPod touch is practically no better than an iPod nano with a large touch screen, unless you have apps installed already.

APPSTORE
Through the AppStore you can download hundreds of apps (around 900 at the time of posting), many of which are free, with the majority costing less than $10 (as per Apple's Q3 conference call numbers). I've decided not to check out the paid apps because I have to return the iPod in in less than 2 weeks and it may be a while before I buy my own.

The best thing about the AppStore is that it is also available in Indonesia, which means we can actually sign up for an iTunes account and grab some apps instead of having to use other countries' iTunes Store as I mentioned in an earlier post. Credit card is required because there is currently no iTunes Gift Cards for Indonesia. I've made enquiries to Apple about this and a few other issues but haven't received any response in a week.

You can buy apps directly from the iPod touch using the AppStore button or from the AppStore through iTunes on your computer. When you buy from iTunes, you need to authorize your computer for the app before you can sync it to the iPod. Do this by going to the Store menu on the menu bar and select Authorize Computer.  Apps bought directly from the iPod needs to be synchronized to the computer, just like purchasing songs from iTunes on the iPod.

Apps are limited to under 2GB but you're very unlikely to find anything beyond 100MB, even most apps on the Mac are under 100MB. All of the apps I've downloaded are less than 10MB, the largest being Tap Tap Revenge at 9.5MB because it needs to have songs built in, and the smallest is To Do by TUAW's Erica Sadun at 56K.

Among the 900 available apps, you can choose between a host of categories including social networking, games, productivity, books, education, finance, health, lifestyle, sports, weather, etc. While you can certainly download and delete all the free apps you like, there is no demo mode for the paid apps so you can't try before you buy.

Apple forbids apps from running in the background claiming (rightly) that it will affect battery life so if you have a Twitter or instant messaging app, you will not be getting any updates if that app is not active since currently Apple hasn't implemented its notification service.

SYNC
Like most iPods, the iPod touch activates iTunes the moment you plug it in to your computer. What I didn't know was that it also opens iPhoto and offers to transfer the pictures in the iPod to iPhoto. This is great for the times when I want to transfer screenshots to the Mac.

By the way, you can now take screenshots in iPod touch as well as the iPhone by pressing the hold button on top and tapping the home button. You'll see a white flash and the picture will be stored under the Photos > Saved Photos.

Synchronizing works as expected. If you're a long time iPod user, you should already be familiar with the new software. You get the Applications tab in addition to the standard Summary, Music, Movies, Photos, etc. where you can choose to sync all apps or selected few.

Something new you get with Mac OS X10.5.3 is the option to sync your contacts to Google if you have a Google account. This appears under Info tab in iTunes and also in Address Book Preferences but only if you have an iPod touch or an iPhone and have plugged it to the Mac. If you don't have an iPod touch or iPhone, this option doesn't appear. Apple only lets you sync to Yahoo instead, aside from the standard sync between the iPod and the computer.

Setting up emails for Gmail and MobileMe as well as other accounts are pretty straightforward. While Apple is struggling with the MobileMe transition from .Mac, it runs as expected on the iPod touch. The iPod touch actually has a tiny speaker that allows for alarms so whenever an email arrives, it will chirp to let you know.

While email works almost flawlessly, it does not however sync contacts on Address Book's Smart Groups. Although Smart Albums on iTunes and iPhoto are recognized in iTunes and by the iPod itself, Apple seems to  have neglected support for Address Book's Smart Groups. A small inconvenience but irritating.

BUYING ADVICE
iPhone 2.0 software is worth the $10 fee if only for the AppStore. Previously Apple charged you $20 to add the five apps mentioned earlier but now it's $10 plus you get the AppStore as well as every single free app that you can download. It's a real bargain for iPod touch users and it brings the iPod touch to an even closer parity with the iPhone. I know it's a pain to have to pay again if you've paid for the five apps before but Apple can't do anything to change it because of the accounting requirements they use in the United States. It's still bit of a pain to update to 2.0 if you're in Indonesia because you have to use a credit card but here's hoping we get the iTunes Gift Card program soon.

This update is really about the AppStore and that is the real star of the show.

                 

Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!