Category: Mobile Phones

Review: The Guardian iPad app

So a few days ago I blogged about the initial reaction to the Guardian’s iPad app when they announced it on Monday. Yesterday it finally hit the app store, and after several hours of stress-inducing load times, I’d upgraded my iPad to iOS 5 which meant that I could download the app.

The app features on Newsstand, Apple’s new system whereby you can see all your magazine and newspaper subscriptions in one place. So far mine is rather sparsely populated with the New Yorker and the Guardian, but it’s nice to know that there’s a dedicated place for my more long form reading.

I think that’s also the key here – it doesn’t make sense for me to put the New Yorker in the same “news” folder as Huff Post, Sky News and Flipboard – it’s a different reading experience, and so is the Guardian.

Anyway once you open up the app you’re given a free trial – mine doesn’t expire until 13 January next year, which gives you more than enough time to work out whether you like it or not and are likely to stump up the £9.99 monthly subscription fee.

It’s an issue based app, which has drawn some criticism, owing to the somewhat static nature of the app. However, I’m inclined to think that it’s a shrewd move by the Guardian, and one which shows that they’re very savvy when it comes to working across multiple platforms. Martin Belam also hinted at integrating story updates in a comment on my post earlier this week.

Data shows that the majority of tablet use is in front of a television or in bed – things that happen primarily in the evening after a day of work. This echoed Alan Rusbridger’s sentiment when he spoke about the Guardian’s printed output, saying that he viewed it as more Newsnight than News at Ten. So why not continue that kind of thinking with the iPad?

I’m on board with the concept behind the iPad app, because I think it epitomises Martin Belam‘s idea of stopping the shovels, but what about the functionality of the app itself?

Well, on starting up you’re presented with a crisply designed homescreen that provides a quick look at all the sections. You can scroll through the top bar independently to skip to a specific section, or browse down the front page if you’re after a more general read.

On opening the comment section, the app presents you with a few commentators’ mugshots as well as the cartoon of the day. To my eye, it’s far more attractive than the web version of Comment is Free, and feels right on an iPad. Tapping on a header takes you into the article, which is again a clean and uncluttered affair that screams “long read” at you.

Amazon’s Kindle is often the favoured device for voracious readers, but if executed well iPad apps can hold their own. From the article page you can share via email, Facebook and Twitter, taking advantage of the new iOS 5 functionality.

Cycling through the various sections of the app, you get the sense that each one has been tailored for its content. The Arts page, for example, is very strong on visuals with some arresting images, while others are more pared down.

Overall the app is a joy to use- and that’s what you want from a news app, something that compels you to pick it up each evening because you know the content is going to be presented elegantly and with attention to detail.

If I had one quibble it would be that in order to access the video section of the Guardian you have to visit the “on the website” category, which redirects to guardian.co.uk. It’s a shame that the iPad’s functionality as a mobile video viewer hasn’t been taken advantage of, but that’s a minor issue.

In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the app could be one of those hallowed few that become strongly associated with the device itself. Simply put, it should make you want to buy an iPad after using it. So give it a go, and let me know what you think.

UPDATE: Some discussion on Twitter this weekend revealed that at the moment the Guardian have decided not to include their weekend edition or the Observer in the app.

I was made aware of this by Patrick Smith, who opined that the Times app launched in May 2010 with all its sections. He was swiftly corrected, but the point remains that it feels a bit lacklustre that the Guardian haven’t included weekend editions from the outset – it would follow with the more contemplative attitude of the app which is suited to weekend reading.

However, as emphasised in another post, they are waiting to see how readers use the app before adding upgrades and changes.

 

google_vs_facebook-759413-220x300

Google Vs Facebook

By now it’s old news that Mark Zuckerberg has come clean and admitted that Facebook had made major mistakes in its convoluted and esoteric privacy system.

But that’s not what I’m interested in at present. Zuckerberg is to all extents, a giddy geek who got in way too deep. He tapped into a need for attention that’s felt by teenagers the world over and managed to turn it into a huge business.

But he’s irrelevant. What I’m really interested in is the contrast of public opinion regarding Google and Facebook.

Google own our world. I don’t mean that in a dystopian, Ministry of Truth type way, but more that they facilitate a huge amount of online (and offline) interactions. Google search, shopper, talk, voice, listen, news, gmail, docs. That’s an ability to subscribe to rss feeds, podcasts, an instant messenger, an email service and an online shopping service. Add to that an operating system in the form of Android (which now outsells the iPhone) and latently, television. Put simply, if Google wanted to become Skynet, it would be well within its means.

There have been privacy scares with Google before. The Google Buzz fiasco rightly caused an uproar, as did the compiling of wi-fi sources last month. Furthermore, it’s really not clear exactly what Google does with our data after countless searches and web pages. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but the reason we regard it more highly than Facebook is for two distinct reasons.

Primarily, Google is a more subtle medium. What I mean by that is that its’ product is a lot less brash and explicit, in contrast to Facebook. Facebook, who have now implemented the “Like” button on a horde of new exterior websites. Facebook Connect is similarly plastered all over many websites. It monopolises the market for trivial interaction, for self validation and for fitting in with your peers. How you can define yourself by what films, books and music you like. Now everyone can be like the cool kids.

Google is far more sophisticated. Its self promotion and products are much more delicate. It gives you the tools to do what you want. Whether that’s edit an online document or look at a house in San Francisco, it’s easy to get to grips with. It also owns a lot of functions that don’t have the Google moniker as a prefix. Android, the mobile phone OS. Blogger, the hugely popular blog platform. Oh, and a little thing called YouTube. That means that Google has control over a lot of things that don’t have explicit Google branding, and that’s very important.

Comparing Google and Facebook directly like this may seem churlish. One is clearly intended as a conglomerate of office tools and communication, the other purely a lightweight social network. But both have privacy and data issues, and both have created a monopoly in each of their areas of interest. So to compare them is actually very natural.

Secondly, Google is actually useful. As I’ve already said, Google facilitates a vast range of interactions and nifty programs. Facebook is much more trivial. Someone mentions it and the connotations aren’t “it helped me get in touch with my old school friends”. It’s more often a tapestry of mundane status updates, superimposed by hundreds of inane photos of “a crazy night out”.

The Google applications on my Android (Google-owned) phone

Google potentially has far more dangerous issues than Facebook. Its market share is huge and the sheer amount of stuff it owns is eye-watering and prevents healthy competition. Google effectively has ownership over my mobile and digital life. But why don’t I care?

Because it works. Google is helpful. I’ll grow tired very quickly of seeing the same photos on Facebook, but I’ll always need to find directions to somewhere I’ve never been before on a map. I think this is at the root of our attitude towards Google, and why it contrasts with that of Facebook. If Facebook had been involved with the same amount of data mining as Google has, there’d have been a revolt long ago. That’s because Facebook is a socially lightweight platform that hasn’t really evolved beyond an adolescent mindset.

On the other hand, Google just works. We’ll always want to watch YouTube, or listen to podcasts, or read the news. Google pinpoints the things that matter most to people and make them easier to use. This may simply be a more Machiavellian way of getting away with murder more often, but people don’t seem to be bothered by it.

Is Google more evil than Facebook? Most certainly. Do we care? No, not at all.

nexus one

News on the move

The future of news is mobile, or so it seems. If you read the right blogs, it seems we’re all already picking up news on our phones. Forget laptops, those things are antiquated. Wait, don’t tell you me you still read newspapers? With paper and everything? Bizarre.

The upturn in mobile apps and more affordable smartphones has undoubtedly made it easier to get news on the go.

I have around 8 news apps on my phone, and based on my experiences, I’ll try to decode why some apps are more successful than others, and why the mobile news haven isn’t quite with us just yet.


1. Not everyone has a flashy phone yet.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that everyone and his dog is carrying with them a phone that does everything but make breakfast. The reality is that smartphones still make up only 15% of the mobile market. So 85% of people with a mobile phone can’t use apps for the internet, recreation or to get their news.

This effect of this small market share is twofold. Firstly, it means that when we’re talking about a general desire to get news on the move we still prefer to read crumpled newspapers on the train. Secondly, those who own a smartphone are more likely to be wanting news anyway. That is, people in media, business and politics. So it’s only natural that they choose phones like these. Smartphones are currently preaching to the converted.


2. Apps need to be personable and unique to work.
It’s staggering how many companies just get this wrong. Imagine it, you’ve approached the boardroom, they say to go right ahead with a mobile app. You consult advertisers, developers and coders, spend a truckload of company money, and then finally release your shiny new app for the world to see…

…only to find that it looks exactly the same as another news organisation.

For all the creativity that some developers bring to apps, news apps can be tediously generic looking, and this won’t help long term development. Take the comparison of my Evening Standard and Reuters apps, for example:

They both work well, they both do the job, but it generally feels like an opportunity for so much more. The world wide web has been around for 20 years now, so websites are relitively old hat. Here’s a chance for a company to make their mark on an entirely new platform, but both opted for a very dull layout, with no real incentive to use the app.

If you compare them to the Huffington Post app:

Or the New York Times: (Simple layout, but has every section from the paper, as well as added video)

So with that in mind…


3. Make sure your app has a unique selling point.

The idea of a usp is something familiar to news as a whole. People read certain newspapers because they reflect and reinforce their own views. Others like to be challenged. But all have something that make them unique in the eyes of the readers, that forces them to part with their money (or, more pertinently, press “download”).

Sky News is a well known news provider. It doesn’t have big viewing figures, but almost everyone knows it for its emphasis on breaking news and ahem, colourful presenters. I don’t like Sky News. It’s difficult to watch, the presenters all look like Spitting Image puppets, and the graphics hurt my eyes.

But I use their news app. Why? Because it ticks every requirement on the mobile news checklist. Regular updates, video content, discussion forums, rss feeds, audio. It’s all here, singing and dancing on my phone. It even has a “Your Report” function (I have quibbles with “citizen journalism” but it’s a unique feature) for sending in your own news footage.

The approach that Sky News took to mobile news is in stark contrast to that of the Telegraph. It looks fairly good, with a simple layout and some nifty animations, but is basically irrelevant because of its lack of usp:

The problem lies in the fact that nothing you get on the Telegraph’s app is unique to the Telegraph. News can be got quicker from a number of sources on an rss reader. There are plenty of sports and travel apps. Reuters does better business news. Engadget and mashable both have very good apps for their expert field, technology. So what does that leave? Motoring? Is that the first thing you think of when someone mentions the Telegraph? While it’s not the end of the world, the lack of adaptability and unwillingness to think things through before making an app means that you’re lumped with a pretty pointless product.

So not quite a mobile revolution yet. Most people who readily use a smartphone now are still ahead of the curve. That means there isn’t a great incentive for companies to invest, because they haven’t yet got anywhere near the audience reach they might command in the future. However, those who are early developers will be sure to reap the rewards once the boom happens.