Tech

On "Rate This App" Popups

in , , ,
 

There's been a conversation over the last few weeks, prompted by John Gruber's post suggesting that he had considered encouraging his readers to leave 1 star reviews everytime an app displays a "Rate this App" Dialogue. It sure has stirred up a ton of debate as developers say that it's a necessary evil as the ongoing profitability of their business is closely related to app store reviews.

On the most recent episode of John's podcast with guest Daniel Jalkut, they further defined the reason why these popups are so frustrating for users. They just aren't about the user. You know- the person who installed, and perhaps even paid money for the app. Love this commentary by Marco-

I’d go further than Gruber’s moderate stance on The Talk Show. I think even interrupting people once with these is too much. I’m strongly against them — to me, they’re spam, pure and simple. They’re as intrusive as a web popup ad, they betray a complete lack of respect for users, and they make their apps’ developers look greedy and desperate.

I've felt a disdain for "Rate this App" popups since the first time I saw one. I'd go leave bad reviews but I don't want to spend time doing that any more than I want to deal with the popup.

I don't know if my behavior is normal, but I just don't leave very many reviews and I don't feel like they are necessary or all that useful with a couple exceptions. I've left a couple reviews to warn people when an app is broken or doesn't do what it says it does. I don't pay much attention to piles of overly positive reviews, but I've noticed a direct correlation between a lot of negative reviews and problems with usability.

In other words, I don't use app store ratings to choose apps, I use them to give me a final yea or nay before purchasing or downloading. So, I find the argument that the incessant quest for app ratings is necessary, kind of ridiculous.

Trying to secure more reviews, in a terribly curated and poorly indexed store isn't the way. If that's what it's come to, you need a better marketing strategy. A well designed app, a good reputation and word of mouth is the way to reach clients who appreciate these things and are willing to pay for it.

 

Sony Needs to Do Better with Lenses for the A7

in , ,
 

So, now that the full announcement, previews, first image samples and first criticisms and praise for the Sony A7 and A7r are here I have a few more thoughts. The A7 is what I and many of my friends value- Top notch Image Quality but smaller and lighter than what has been previously avialable.

I'm gonna put one piece of criticism out there.

Lenses. What's the deal with Sony and lens planning?

How is it that Sony isn't just releasing amazing Primes right out of the chute for this system?

The 55 f/1.8 Zeiss is great, but why not go faster with the 35? We know it's possible because they already put out an amazing f/2 on the RX-1. I've heard rumors that the short mount distance on the RX-1 makes this lens work, but no one would have complained about an extra centimeter of length due to the interchangeable mount. And why not a 24mm and an 85mm? They could have totally changed the reputation among serious photographers regarding their lenses if they'd just done it right.

Instead, they are getting the same criticisms they've always gotten for the NEX system. Great bodies. Bummer of a lens selection.

Also,why does Sony refuse to go faster than 1.8 on mirrorless?

They need to take notes from Fuji who is pretty much universally praised for the quality of their X series lenses. That's a way to release a system. There isn't really a missing focal length in their native offerings and they are comparing favorably to the Zeiss Touit lenses. That says a lot.

Sony is saying that there are 15 full frame lenses on the way, but there aren't even 15 E mount lenses for NEX APS-C right now. There are a few more if you include third party offerings from Zeiss, Sigma and Rockinon, but they mostly duplicate Sony's own offerings.

  1. 16 f/2.8
  2. 10-18 f/4
  3. 20 f/2.8
  4. 24 Zeiss f/1.8
  5. 30 f/3.5 macro
  6. 35 f/1.8
  7. 50 f/1.8
  8. 18-55 zoom f/3.5-5.6
  9. 16-55 pzoom f/3.5-5.6
  10. 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3
  11. 55-210 f/4.5-6.3
  12. big video power zoom 18-200 f/3.5-6.3
  13. Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 zoom
  14. Sony g zoom 18-105mm f/4

I might be missing something…but 3 years in and they are still missing a few key lenses. No 75, no 100, no fast zooms at all. Every zoom is 3.5 and the only two that are constant are f4. Perhaps more importantly, the quality of the above lens selection is really hit and miss. There are some great lenses in that list, but there isn't the consistency to build a good reputation.

If they want to be taken seriously and convert pro Canon and Nikon owners they need to develop competitors to the long fast zooms. They might be big compared to current NEX offerings, but they should be able to make them smaller than FX and L lenses because of the short mount distance.

How about a 70-200 f/2.8, an 18-105 f/2.8 or a 14-24 f/2.8?

It seems to me that the majority of pros using full frame canon and Nikon care way more about sharp fast zooms than primes.

By contrast, almost no one uses zooms on mirror less cameras because they don't make any nice ones that are sharp anywhere but in the center.

The Sony guys are talking about using glass from other mounts using adaptors, but they need to develop native e mount lenses if they hope for people to switch. They can't make folks go elsewhere to for their go-to lenses.

So, if you've read my blog at all before, it's clear that I'm a huge Sony fan. They are pushing the envelope like no other company out there. I only put this criticism out as a fan who wants to see Sony succeed. They could really make a huge shift in the camera market and the perception of mirrorless systems in general with this new camera. I just hate to see them fumble on the lens part.

 

Sony Mirrorless Full Frame - The Future of Photography?

in , ,
 

Image from Digicame-info.com  

I love gadgets. So it's no surprise that I make it pretty clear what I'm using, and occasionally, what I find intriguing. About a year and a half ago I bought my first modern digital Interchangeable lens camera and as I detailed here, I chose the Sony NEX system.

Sony is a company that has shown a willingness to push the boundaries. Here are some examples: Release of the NEX (First mirrorless APS-C system), RX-1 (First Full Frame fixed lens Mirrorless camera), Focus peaking system, and the Alpha SLT system. They make the sensors used in Nikon's flagship Full frame cameras and the sensor used in the iPhone 5 and 5s.

So, with the release and subsequent success of the RX-1 it isn't that much of a surprise that Sony is only a few days from releasing an interchangeable lens Full Frame Mirrorless system. It will use the same lens mount as the NEX system and the first 2 models will carry a center-mounted Electronic Viewfinder.

Digicame-info.com posted a couple photos which have been confirmed by Andrea at Sony Alpha Rumors. To my eyes, the camera looks like a hybrid. The body and top controls are like an RX-1, the grip and mount are from the NEX bodies, and the hump on top of the body for the EVF that looks like an old school pentraprism box.

There have been quite a few exceptional photographers that have moved to mirrorless systems as their primary kit over the past couple years. Trey Ratcliff recently started using the NEX 7 for his epic landscapes. Zack Arias is a hardcore Fuji X series user. TED photographer Duncan Davidson has been using the RX-1 as his main camera for day-to-day use. Aaron Courter, who is an exceptional Portland based photographer and a long time friend has been incorporating the Fuji X cameras into his personal work, wedding and portrait business with great success.

I'm in love with the Sony NEX. I never even considered a DSLR camera because of the size, the weight and what I perceived to be its imminent demise. Up until now, you couldn't really get the same image quality and crazy shallow depth of field from a mirrorless camera, but I think the A7 and A7r will be the start of a large scale move away from large DSLR bodies for most photographers.

Sure, there are some times when the larger camera really makes sense. The Mirrored design still allows for faster focusing in sports contexts and there is certainly an expectation in event photography that will take awhile to pass. In addition, the larger bodies do have many features still missing from the new breed of mirrorless cameras and certainly handle big glass much better.

This is a moment. It feels like the rise of ultra portable notebooks such as the Macbook Air which have almost negated the need for more powerful desktops for all but the most demanding of users. I believe we are witnessing the birth of the future of photography.

 
 

Goodbye Google Reader

in , , ,

Like many others, perhaps like you, I’m trying to figure out what to use as a replacement for Google Reader. I’ve used it for a few years as a way to keep up with the many authors, photographers and tech sites that I enjoy. In the past 2 years, I’ve begun to use an app called Reeder that adopted the Google Reader API, but gave me the content in a much more visually appealing fashion.

It works well on iPhone, iPad and my Macbook. I’ve used the actual Google webview at work as I can’t install software on my work machine for banking and investment compliance reasons. It’s been a pretty good solution thus far, but the Google Reader API was the engine driving all of this.

Since the news broke last Wednesday, there have been so many conversations about the future of RSS and of all the apps and services that have come to depend on this free service that Google is shutting down.

I tried out a few different alternatives over the weekend and I've found a few important things to consider in replacing it.

  1. It would be really nice if I could use apps which are familiar. For this to work, would require a replacement for the Google Reader API. This would probaly be the option with the least amount of friction for most folks. The only piece that would be missing is a web view for times when viewing on your own device isn’t possible.

  2. There are already some alternative apps for reading RSS feeds, but they use their own backend for pulling in content. The issue here is that Google has built a pretty amazing and efficient way to pull in all of the stuff you want to see and keep track of what’s new. When you use other systems, they ‘get’ the content for you, but there is no cental record of read status.

I’ve been trying out Feedly for a few days and it shows some definite promise. They're working on a replacement for the Google Reader API called Normandy. I really like the web view, but it is dependant on a Browser extension. That doesn’t work for me as I can’t install extensions at work. The apps are clean and show good visual design, but are perhaps a bit overkill compared to my RSS readers like Byword and NetNewsWire.

I’ll update as I continue working through this stuff. In the meantime, Google Reader will keep working until July 1st.

If you subscribe to this site via RSS, just keep watching here and I'll give you some alternatives. If not, you can follow me on Twitter or sign up to have posts delivered to your inboxdaily.