iPhone 7 Review: Struggling to Maintain the Apple Magic

Another year, another iPhone.  The familiar cycle is well-worn 9 years after the release of the original iPhone.  Touchscreens and smartphones have become the norm around the world.  The "magic" of portable devices and near ubiquitous access to your media is a luxury we largely take for granted.  So how does an iPhone that has hardly changed intend to change the game?

THE PHONE

I'll admit that if I hadn't broken the screen of my iPhone 6s just days before pre-orders for the iPhone 7 began (and the fact that Apple wanted to charge me an arm and a leg to repair it), I probably wouldn't have even bothered to upgrade.

The Look

Even now, if I set my iPhone 7 next to my iPhone 6s, it's easy to mistake one for the other.  Particularly from a top-down perspective, there's virtually no immediately visible difference between them.  In fact, when I first set up my iPhone 7, my iPhone 6s was sitting on the table and I found myself instinctively reaching for it when I would get a text or Facebook message before realizing I'd picked up the old phone.

The only glaring difference between the two is, of course, the lack of a headphone jack on the iPhone 7 (more on that in a bit).  In place of that port is a new set of speaker grills.  Otherwise, the design scheme is virtually identical to last year (and the year before).  It's a sore spot for some, but I can't complain.  While I still believe the iPhone 5s had the best pure design for any iPhone, I've had no problem adapting to the iPhone 6(s)'s size.

One problem I did have with my iPhone 6s was the visible antenna lines on the back of the phone.  Regardless of what color you chose, the antenna lines were a relative scar on Apple's traditionally elegant design.  That issue is non-existent here, especially if you opt for one of the two "black" iPhone models Apple is so fond of showcasing.  I grabbed a glossy Jet Black iPhone 7, and though it will likely spend 95% of the next year snug inside its case, a brief investigation did show that the antenna lines were practically invisible.  Aside from holding it inches from my face, the back of the iPhone otherwise appears as a single, glossy sheet.

It's always baffled me that people would fight for a particular color of iPhone, as almost every smartphone user I know has theirs inside some case or other.  The back of the phone (the part where the chosen color is most noticeable) is usually hidden.  So why would you wait an extra week for a Rose Gold iPhone when Silver and Gold were available right now?

Skeptic though I was, I became a victim of this very tactic with the iPhone 7.  I always loved the iPhone 4's smooth, glossy look and feel: it's the thing I missed most when I upgraded to the iPhone 5s' aluminum "Space Gray" back.  So when Apple unveiled the Jet Black iPhone 7, I was hooked.  I waited an extra week, even knowing the glossy finish would be especially vulnerable to fingerprints and--in Apple's words--"micro-abrasions".  This was the iPhone for me, and  I could not be more pleased with the look and feel of the Jet Black iPhone.

The New Home Button

Even if the colors don't get your tech-fire going, some of Apple's other changes will.

The new Home "button" is sure to get opinions flaring.  It's one of the first things I noticed when handling the new phone.  Much like the trackpad on Apple's 12" MacBook, the new Home button is a stationary piece of hardware that doesn't actually "click" in the traditional sense.  Instead, applying force to the Home button triggers Apple's "taptic" feedback that gives the illusion of the user having clicked something.  Apple even allows you to customize what kind of feedback you receive from the Home button so that it feels just right for each user.

It took some getting used to, but by the end of the second day I barely noticed the new Home button at all.  In fact, picking up the 6s and clicking an actual button now feels a bit awkward.  Of course, the level of comfort will largely depend on the person using the phone, but I'd venture to say most people will not have an issue with it.

Apple is now touting the new phone as water resistant, and several tests have shown it to be very true.  While you still shouldn't seek out opportunities to submerge your iPhone, you won't be freaking out if it happens to be in your pocket when your cousin pushes you in the pool.  I haven't tested this myself as I don't have the luxury of a "dummy" model to fall back on, but there are plenty of YouTubers out there with their own demonstrations.  The phone holds up surprisingly well, even beyond Apple's promised depth.

Saying Goodbye to the Headphone Jack

Finally, there's the matter of the Lightning Port and--more specifically--the matter of not having a 3.5mm headphone jack.  This is probably the most controversial decision Apple has made with the new iPhone, but I'm not sure the controversy is warranted.

If, like me, your iPhone is your primary listening device, you're stuck in two camps:

Camp A - You have a premium set of headphones that you use when listening to your iPhone.

Camp B - You use Apple's boxed-in EarPods when listening.

Either way, Apple's got you covered.

If you use a pair of premium headphones (I have a pair of Beats Studios), Apple provides a Lightning-to-3.5mm adapter.  It's a tiny thing: so small that Apple managed to pack it in on the opposite side of its earphones in the box, and--as the name implies--it allows you to attach a pair of legacy headphones to the iPhone via the Lightning port.  Just beware: this thing is very tiny and you will probably end up losing it at some point.  Not to fear: Apple is selling replacements for an easy $9, which is rather generous by Apple standards.

If you're in Camp B, Apple--as ever--includes their stock EarPods in the box; only this year you'll find the cable tipped with a Lightning connector instead of the "antiquated" 3.5mm audio tip.  (Apple is selling these independently as well, for $29.)

There is a third, growing camp: those that use wireless headphones.  While Apple is yet to release their own wireless AirPods using the new W1 chip that promises easier pairing over standard Bluetooth, third-party manufacturers have plenty to offer in the way of wireless listening.  If you have a pair of wireless headphones that you've been using with your old iPhone, these will work just fine with the iPhone 7.

So, out of the box, you should have no trouble listening to your media with the new iPhone.

That said, it didn't take long for some to start asking Apple the kinds of questions Apple doesn't like to hear:

How do you listen to music while charging your iPhone if there's only one Lightning Port?

At first this felt a little nit-picky, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized this could be a glaring problem for many.  How many people sit at their desks at work with their iPhone playing music while they listen through their headphones?  How many people go on runs with their iPhones and bring external batteries to keep it charged?

Obviously, Apple would love people to believe that the extra battery life afforded in the new iPhones (an extra 2 hours in the 7 and 1 hour in the 7 Plus) means you shouldn't need to charge your iPhone in the middle of the day.  Even now, with my iPhone off the charger for 8 1/2 hours or so, it sits happily at 54%.  That's with a fair amount of web surfing, texting, games, and audio streaming.  Nothing too intense, but this is my typical day with iPhone, so I'm happy to see that it's holding up better than the 6s.

Apple's VP of Worldwide Marketing, Phil Schiller, gave two very Apple-esque answers to the charging crisis:

1.)  You should invest in a pair of wireless earphones like Apple's own AirPods.  Because after buying a $650 phone, who doesn't have an extra $160 for a pair of wireless earphones?  

2.)  You should buy Apple's Lightning Dock: the standard charging dock for iPhone that features a 3.5mm audio output jack.  That will set you back a measly $50.

Of course, neither of these answers are satisfactory.  What's more, they make the removal of the headphone jack (something Apple most likely did for water-proofing purposes) feel like nothing more than a cheap marketing tactic to move its own accessories.  While it may not be an entirely innocent play by Apple, the magic in Cupertino has always hinged on the idea that the company is doing what's best for you, and that is very hard to buy into when its only answer to the friction of adapting is, "buy more products."

So, as someone who takes their iPhone everywhere and uses it as their primary computer, communication device, and media player, how inconvenient is it not having a headphone jack?

To be honest, not especially.

Thus far, I can think of only one instance where I grabbed my iPhone, intending to listen to music, and pushed it aside in favor of my iPad because I didn't want to go grab the headphone adapter.  I also listen to audiobooks, and while I generally put headphones on for this as well, I simply turned up the volume on my iPhone and set it on the counter while I did the dishes.  I've since kept the adapter attached to my headphones, which I always put back in their case when not actively listening, to eliminate the extra step in the future.

I could discern no noticeable difference when listening to music with the Lightning connector as when listening without it, but my ears may not be as sensitive to the sound as others.

Sight and Sound

As for the built-in iPhone speakers, there are two of them, now.  The earpiece in the iPhone now doubles as a second speaker and it fully supports stereo separation when the phone is in landscape mode.  What's surprising is that I found the earpiece speaker to sound slightly better than the bottom speaker on the iPhone.  Granted, my only test for this was holding my ear up to first one speaker, then the other, but I'm still surprised that the top speaker sounds noticeably better.

Not much else has changed, but I will make one final point about the iPhone 7, and that's the Optical Image Stabilization in the new camera.  This was a feature previously reserved for the bulkier iPhone 7 Plus, but Apple graciously included it with the standard 4.7" iPhone this year.  Now, I'll be the first to admit that while my iPhone has become my primary camera over the years, I don't usually shoot a lot of video with it. That said, a side-by-side video test of the iPhone 6s and iPhone 7 shows a dramatic difference when filming shaky video.  I took both phones and shot the same images while shaking my hands up and down simultaneously.  Playback proved that the iPhone 7 was much better at compensating for camera movement, and while you could definitely tell neither video was filmed with a steady hand, it did a much better job of maintaining clarity.  This is a great feature, and I'm glad Apple's including it in all iPhone models this year.

That being said, yes, I am somewhat jealous of the iPhone 7 Plus' second lens and all the salivating features that come with it, but i just can't bring myself to use a 5.5" phone.  Maybe one day the 4.7" model will get some love in that department as well.

Overall, I'd have to say that the iPhone 7 is a great smartphone, but I'm not sure any one feature--or even all of these features, collectively--are enough to warrant an upgrade if you own anything newer than an iPhone 5s.  Much of Apple's improvements come via iOS 10, which is available to any model all the way back to the iPhone 5, so give that a whirl first.  If you're part of the iPhone Upgrade Program or a similar program through your carrier, upgrading is a no-brainer, but if you're holding out for something more radical, you may want to wait and see what Apple does in 2017 for the iPhone's 10th anniversary.

THE EXPERIENCE

I've been fairly easy on the iPhone 7, and that largely has to do with the fact that nothing has drastically changed.

However, I do want to touch on some of the factors surrounding the iPhone "experience".  This has less to do with the iPhone itself and more to do with the process of migrating from my iPhone 6s to my iPhone 7.

A device is one thing.  The "experience" of a device is another.  The latter is something Apple prides itself on, going back to when Steve Jobs would argue over the packaging design for his products.  Those aspects are common with most manufacturers now, but Apple is still the flag-bearer.  Once the phone is out of the box, there's the process of setting the device up and getting everything moved over from one device to the next.

To say that Apple needs to refine this latter process is something of an understatement.

Unboxing

Once I got my iPhone 7 home, I plugged in my iPhone 6s and began the methodical process of backing up the device.  Not wanting to rely on my internet connection for backing up and restoring, I instead opted to make a backup to iTunes on my iMac.

This process took about 10 minutes, during which I had a chance to unbox the iPhone 7.

The first thing I noticed about the iPhone packaging is that it was black.  That may not sound like a big deal, but there hasn't been a black iPhone box since the 3GS back in 2009.  I've always opted for the black finish for my iPhone, but they've always arrived in white boxes.  This year, Apple is changing things up.  If you order a black iPhone, you'll get a black box.  A nice touch that again affirmed my choice in color scheme.

Unlike my previous experiences with Apple products, the first thing facing me out of the box was not the phone itself, but the cardboard sleeve housing the very brief (and very minutely-printed) documentation.  Under this was the iPhone itself, and under that was the usually kit: the EarPods, 5W power brick, Lightning Cable, and (new to the group) the Lightning-to-3.5mm adapter.  Nothing too surprising, really, except that I have to question Apple's decision to put the documentation on top of the iPhone.  While seeing the words "Designed by Apple in California" are a nice prelude to the device itself, it does take away a little of the "ahh" factor when the device isn't there to greet you upon opening the box.

Backup

I fired up the iPhone, and there was the familiar white Apple logo glowing up from its black obelisk.  Then came the blinding white of the setup process screen.  I clicked through all the prompts until I got to the point where I could restore the phone from a backup.

It was here that I had to play the waiting game, and it's here that I believe Apple has some work to do.

The first thing I did was look down at my wrist.  It was 7:00 p.m.  I could have this setup before bed (I'd even get a chance to play with it a little).  But it was my wrist that gave me pause.

How exactly did I go about unpairing my Apple Watch?

For the answer, I was forced to turn to Apple's website.

It baffles me that when setting up a new iPhone, there is not a single slide that asks whether you own an Apple Watch and would like to unpair it from your existing iPhone before proceeding.  I understand that smartwatches in general are still considered a niche product, but this is an easy way for Apple to plant the seed in consumers' heads, and make the lives of those already own an Apple Watch a little easier.

Regardless, Apple's support documentation explains that there's an "unpair" option in the Apple Watch app on the phone.  Great.

But would all my Activity data be saved?  All my settings?  My Watch faces and my preferences?  To answer these questions, I had to reference yet another support document on Apple's website.

It turns out the Apple Watch backs up to the iPhone it's paired with.  The iPhone performs a backup of the Apple Watch when the devices are unpaired,  and all that data is backed up when you backup the phone.  This sounds great, in theory, except for the small piece of fine print stating that if you do not perform an encrypted backup in iTunes, your Activity data will not be saved.

I looked in iTunes.  "Encrypted backup" was not checked.  So, once my iPhone completed the backup (another minute or so), I unpaired my Apple Watch (which took several minutes to perform the backup and complete the process of unpairing), and then had to backup my iPhone yet again to iTunes.  We were now going on 7:30 p.m.

Restoring From Backup

Once the iPhone 6s had been backed up, I connected my iPhone 7 and chose the option to "Restore from iTunes Backup", selecting the backup I had just performed.  It was another ten minutes or so before I was able to interact with the iPhone again.  At this point, it asked me the standard setup questions: Select a wifi network, log in to iCloud, etc.  These are all very obvious questions, but some of the things I was asked to do surprised me.

I was directed to setup TouchID and Siri again.  I realize this probably has a lot to do with Apple's tight stance on consumer privacy (your fingerprints never leave the encrypted chip on that particular iPhone), but it seemed on that even in an encrypted backup to an encrypted and password-protected computer, no reference to this information was stored.

I was then asked what sort of feedback I preferred for the new Home button, and after a few more prompts, was taken to the Home screen.

Now, I will admit that it has been quite a while since I've backed up an iPhone to iTunes, but back in the day, doing so meant that a hard copy of each app was stored on the computer and that those copies were transferred via the Lightning cable to the phone again upon restoration.

No longer.  Upon reaching the Home Screen, I discovered that most of my apps were in the process of being downloaded from the App Store.  Little crescent circles gradually filled at what felt like a snail's pace as each app in turn was fetched from the Internet and deposited to the phone.  Why this isn't done via the computer and Lightning cable, I have no idea.

Glancing at my iPhone right now, I see that I have 122 apps on the phone.  Not all of them are dire.  I could probably stand to delete a few, but I have plenty of space free, so it's not an issue yet.  What is an issue is 122 apps downloading on my modest 30Mbps internet connection.  There was little I could do but sit and watch as those circles slowly closed: a sensation that was oddly satisfying and frustrating at the same time.  Luckily, most of these apps remembered my preferences once they were re-installed, and entering my passwords again was rarely needed.

Then came the most important part: my music.

To say that Apple has made a mess of iCloud Music Libraries is an understatement.  People have wound up turning the feature completely off because it seems intent on wreaking havoc.  While I've been frustrated by it, and had to restore my music from scratch in several instances, I've had little problem with music as a whole, though I still keep a non-iCloud copy of my iTunes library on my MacBook Pro, just in case.

When I opened up the Music app, I was surprised to see nothing there.  Once again, I imagined that Apple intended to download all the music from scratch from iCloud.  But there were tracks in my iTunes library that I knew would not exist in iCloud.  So once again, I turned off iCloud Music Library and plugged the iPhone into my iMac where it proceeded to sync over 7500 songs.

Final Setup

By the time this was all complete, it was nearing 9:30.  It baffles me that this entire process is not more intuitive or seamless, particularly for a company like Apple that prides itself on the user experience.  Yes, Apple's cloud-based enterprises have a lot of growing up to do (they still only offer a pathetic 5GB of free iCloud storage), but if you're banking on users storing their backups, data, and media in your cloud, then you better make it easy to retrieve that data and transfer it to a new device.

Moreover, I understand that all of this takes time, and that time will vary depending on the user's internet connection.  But I would much rather have dealt with a slow-moving progress bar beneath an optimistic Apple logo then have to sit there and watch each app load in turn or each track sync individually.  Why tease me with the idea that the phone is ready to use only to have me find it is still working to get where it needs to be?

To make matters worse, I still had to pair my Apple Watch with the new iPhone.  This was another laborious process that took much longer than it should have (about half an hour).  Once again, there's no point in the iPhone setup process that prompts you to pair your watch.  Luckily, once it was done, all my data appeared to be intact.

The same is true of Photos.  Again, this is a feature I have enabled in the cloud so that all my photos appear on all my connected devices.  That sounds great in principle, but it's far from perfect.  When I looked at my iPhone 6s, I had 2,941 photos.  When I looked at my iPhone 7, I had just 2,031 photos.  Why?  I still don't know.  I'm assuming it took time to retrieve all those photos from iCloud, but it wasn't until the next day that the number of photos on each device were identical.

And as for the Photos app, Apple includes a facial-recognition feature in iOS 10 that allows users to easily find pictures of their favorite people.  That's all well and good, except that the only time the iPhone will scan your photo library is when it's plugged in to power and locked.  To make matters more cumbersome, the technology behind it seems to still be in beta form as the next day my face was presented as belonging to five different people.  Luckily, there is an option to "merge" these instances together to let the phone know you are the same person, but even today--over two weeks after setting up the phone--I will occasionally wake up to see that it has created yet another instance of me.

Room For Improvement

iOS 10 is a very nice improvement overall.  It feels zippier than its predecessor and more refined, but before you can enjoy any of that you must wade through the labyrinthine bog that is the Apple setup process.

You see, none of these things are terribly difficult in and of themselves.  Syncing music can be time-consuming for someone with a big library, but it's not hard if you set aside the time.  Setting up Apple Watch isn't nearly as frustrating if you're doing it for the first time.  Backing up and restoring from iTunes or iCloud is not a particularly tricky process.  But when you combine each of these into a single, monotonous task, it becomes a mind-numbing marathon as you must jump first one hurdle, then another in your quest to simply get a smartphone up and running.

It speaks volumes that the iPhone has become such a centerpiece to Apple's ecosystem.  I'm a perfect example of someone who has "bought in" and invested heavily in that system.  But there is an inherent flaw here.  Apple prides itself on developing its hardware and software in tandem to provide the most seamless user experiences for their consumers.  But when you tack on features years after the fact, it starts to poke at the seams of that "magic".

iTunes is a prime example of a product that is overblown.  A simple music buying, syncing, and playback app became an all-in-one media hub for everything from music to movies to TV shows to apps and radio.  There's no way Apple could make it truly useful again without rebuilding it from the ground up.  While the latest redesign in macOS Sierra has gone a long way in making that program useable again, it's still not intuitive enough to feel reliable.  Moreover, why are we still relying on "desktop-based" programs like iTunes to hold our media in 2016?

I know there are other solutions out there, but the point is, Apple should be the solution: Apple should recognize the need for a revamped media app and create that app for its users.  Apple shouldn't just be presenting iCloud services (something that started with music and branched out to Photos and iDevice backups), it should be actively working to present the most elegant solution available.

Accessories

But it's not all doom and gloom for Apple this year.  I have at least a few positive notes for the folks in Cupertino.

The first is that Lightning to headphone adapter.  I know this is a sore spot for a lot of people, but Apple did right by its customers.  Say what you want about the company's rhetoric in removing the headphone jack: they could've left the adapter out of the box, or worse, they could be charging $20 for that adapter instead of $9.  I applaud Apple for both including the adapter and making the purchase of future adapters a painless affair.

Second is the new Apple Leather Case for iPhone.  I've always liked Apple's cases for their slimness and style.  I had an Otterbox back in the day with my iPhone 4, but since then I've preferred simpler cases that don't add too much bulk to the phone itself.  That's become especially true as the phones have gotten narrower (at least in depth).  So for the iPhone 5s and iPhone 6s, I opted for Apple's homegrown leather cases.

Unfortunately, in the instance of the 6s, it was not always a fond experience.  With the redesign of the iPhone 6, the volume buttons shrank and the Sleep/Wake button was moved to the side rather than on top.  Those buttons were wide and flat on previous iPhones, but were narrow and finicky on the iPhone 6 and later.  On the leather cases for the iPhone 6s, at least, the housing for those buttons was not particularly forgiving and I often found myself unsure if I'd pressed firmly enough to trigger a reaction from the phone.  Even now, picking up the old case, it's amazing how stiff those buttons are to the touch.

That's changed with the cases for iPhone 7 as Apple has instead molded the button housing out of aluminum.  There's much more feedback to the buttons, now, and I've had no problems clicking away.

Finally, there is iOS 10.  I'm not thrilled with everything Apple has done in the new iOS.  The Messages app, in particular, is starting to feel bloated and clunky.  But there is a sense of refinement to iOS 10 permeated its predecessors and promises that Apple still knows how to do things right when it wants to.

The glaring counter to that seems to be that there is a growing disparagement between hardware and software development.  While the software continues to be more cohesive and seamless, the hardware feels a bit stagnant.  Sticking with the same design three years running is a first for Apple, and one can only hope that the iPhone's 10th anniversary will bring something truly revolutionary to the table.

It's also time to stop and ask ourselves what we expect from a smartphone.  How many new features can a company like Apple, Samsung or Motorola continue to pack into a pocket-sized computer before we stop looking for the next "revolutionary" smartphone?  Faster processors, better cameras, increased storage, and longer battery life are all great things, but none of theme fundamentally change the way we use our phones.

It's never been easier to upgrade to a new smartphone.  All the major carriers and even Apple itself offer programs for customers to upgrade annually to the latest and greatest device.  To any early smartphone adopter that sounds like a dream come true, but for many the "magic" of mobile technology is wearing thinner by the month, and it won't be long until we are looking to companies like Apple for the "next big thing."

Why Neo and Scorpio WON'T be the Worst Thing Ever

In 2005, I wanted an Xbox 360.  Everyone wanted one.  But, like so much of new tech, there were massive supply shortages and at $400, the initial price tag was just too high to simply "dive in".  Plus, I still had some great games like God of War II and Shadow of the Colossus that I'd yet to finish on my reliable, old Playstation 2.  The more I played them, the more I realized I wasn't a Microsoft guy.  I was a Sony fanboy.  Yes, Microsoft had some great exclusives like Left 4 Dead, Gears of War, and Mass Effect, but I was content to wait until Sony released their console.  (Sorry, guys, give me Quake II or Unreal Tournament over Halo, any day.)

This was also when the HD Format Wars were shaking out, and while Microsoft had fastened its "next-gen" console with a standard DVD player and an expensive add-on, Sony was going all out by fitting its shiny new living room invader with the barely-emerging Blu-Ray player, which promised higher storage capacities that fostered better video quality.  Yes, it was more expensive than the competition, but the Playstation 3 offered a more "complete" console with HDMI ports, an integrated wireless adapter, a native wireless controller, and damn it looked sleek as hell.

Unfortunately, by then, Microsoft had been entrenching itself into homes for almost a full year, and Sony would have a rough go of catching up when the 80GB version of its console was retailing for $600.  And even if you concede that Sony lost the fight for the last console generation, the allegiances pledged and forsaken during this time would define it for years to come.

Buying a console is a hallmark of a new gaming cycle.  Think of it like Christmas, if Christmas came once every seven years or so.  A console wasn't just a toy or some piece of equipment for your entertainment center like a new DVD player that could be swapped out for $50 year-on-year.  A console was an investment.  Whatever you connected to your television in those early days would likely remain connected for the next decade.  The weight of that decision can overwhelm the casual gamer who is coming from outside the hype, and could start wars of rage among those who have already been indoctrinated into the ultra-competitive gamer culture.

I eventually caved a year or so later and got an Xbox 360 anyway, and while I got exponentially more frequent and consistent use out of my Playstation 3, playing the Mass Effect series on my 360 was worth the price of the console alone.

With my loyalties firmly behind Sony, I was all too eager for them to give me an excuse to upgrade to the Playstation 4.  That excuse came in the form on Uncharted 4, and it did not disappoint.  With a lower retail price and beefier specs than the Xbox One, it seemed obvious which console to buy, especially after Microsoft blundered its way through the initial unveiling of their new baby.

Once again, I felt assured that the console I bought back in February would be decorating my entertainment center for the next ten years or so.  As a gamer, I was content.

Then it all came crashing down at E3 2016, when Microsoft announced their mysterious Project Scorpio and Sony confirmed longstanding rumors that they'd been brewing an early successor to the PS4.  Both consoles promised more power, but each company assured its customers that these consoles would not only be backwards-compatible with the existing catalog of current-generation games, but that all games going forward would be available for both the existing consoles and the consoles to come.

That should have been enough to assuage my anger, but I've heard similar promises before.  Anyone who's played MLB: The Show on a Playstation 2 when they could be playing a much smoother, better looking version on Playstation 3 can tell you that the promise of ubiquity among games is not as reassuring as it may at first appear.

What were these guys thinking?  It's not like the Xbox One and Playstation 4 have grown long in the tooth!  They still average $300-$350 a pop!  That's a far cry from the $100 Xbox 360's or Playstation 3's you can get these days!  Why would they even bother introducing new hardware when this console generation is just starting to hit its stride?

Well, to be honest, there's a few reasons.

Firstly, there's the adoption of 4K.  Whereas Ultra-High Definition seemed like an expensive luxury a few years ago, 4K TVs are finally reaching the price point that makes them attractive to those that couldn't previously afford them.  With companies like Netflix and Amazon pledging to produce content in 4K resolution, the real boom for the format will happen when broadcast television makes the switch (which is a huge can of worms for a whole other article).  Say what you want about the lack of 4K content (which is keeping me from splurging on a new screen of my own), but those looking for the crispest video experience are expected to be flocking to 4K in 2016.

Unfortunately, one thing you won't be able to do in 4K is play video games.  As powerful as the latest crop of hardware is, it's barely powerful enough to push 1080p at 60 frames per second.  Try quadrupling that resolution, and you'll be lucky to see anything resembling a playable experience.

The upcoming Xbox One S may be able to play 4K video, but if Microsoft has its way, it looks like Scorpio is groomed for 4K gaming.

The next elephant in the room is Virtual Reality games, which were prominently featured at E3 this year.  Like 4K games, the Xbox One and Playstation 4 are nowhere near powerful enough to present a smooth VR experience; and when it comes to VR, smoothness is everything.

So while Microsoft didn't announce their own VR hardware, Sony went ahead and put a price tag on theirs, and while Sony promises that existing PS4's will in fact be able to use the upcoming Playstation VR headsets, it's unknown if the system has the "oomf!" needed to render two instances of 1080p video at a constant 60-90 frames per second.

That's all well and good, but I was still brimming with frustration.  I'm not what most people would consider a "hardcore" gamer.  Sure, I enjoy video games.  A lot of video games.  And yeah, I like to pimp out my PC to make it the best it can possibly be.  I love beautiful games, and I love them at smooth framerates.  Did Uncharted 4 start to stutter a little bit towards the end when things got hot and heavy?  Sure, but the game itself was never unplayable.  In fact, aside from one instance in which the game froze toward the end of what had been a rage-inducing firefight, not only did the game look incredible, but I never noticed a perceptible dip in performance until the very end.

It's not a question of whether or not I'd like a console that could play Uncharted 4 with no hiccups whatsoever.  It's the question of whether or not I'm willing to pay for a new console, effectively replacing my less-than-a-year-old one, for that privilege.

I also have to ask myself how quickly I'll be dipping in to the world of VR, and whether the current crop of promised experiences is worth the investment in a headset that in and of itself costs as much (if not more) than any console required to use it.

For me, the answer is no.  Not only can I not afford this upgrade, but there's simply no motivation for me to upgrade right now.  However, coming to that realization helped me understand that I was looking at this all wrong.

As a PC gamer, I'm used to new hardware coming out on a more-or-less annual basis.  When it does, I have to weigh the pros and cons (mostly financial ones) to see if the investment in new hardware is really worth the performance boost.  Most times, the answer is no.

But I'm also a console gamer, and the console gamer in me is used to investing in one machine over seven or so years before needing to drop another $400-$500 on a new one.

See, the language of these industries is different.  PC language says, "If you can afford it, we have it," whereas console language used to be a one-stop-shop for a system that "just works."  New PC hardware meant that elitists could upgrade to the latest and greatest, but new console hardware meant that the industry expected you to upgrade to whatever they were selling if you even wanted to be relevant in the next year.

Then I took a look at my phone.  There's a notification from AT&T that I am eligible for an upgrade.  But I'm staring at my iPhone 6s thinking to myself, "Apple hasn't even come out with a new flagship phone for me to upgrade to!  And even if they did, there's no reason for me to upgrade this phone!  It works fine!"

That's the way we will start thinking about consoles: Sure, there's something better out there right now for those who can afford the upgrade, but mine's working just fine for now.

The difference is, whereas not upgrading from a Playstation 2 to a Playstation 3 meant you couldn't play God of War III, not upgrading from a PS4 to a Playstation Neo doesn't shut you out.  You'll still be able to play all the games that are coming out for this console generation.  Will they look quite as pretty or play quite as smoothly on your current hardware as they will on the new one?  Probably not.  And if that bothers you enough to sink more money into a Neo or a Scorpio, then the option is there.

But for someone like me, who can't afford to upgrade their console or their phone every two years, the promise is that I'm still part of this console generation.  I'm not being left behind.

Now, obviously at some point they will phase out the Playstation 4.  More and more games will become exclusive to the consoles with the hardware capable of presenting them as their creators intended, and then gamers will have to choose whether or not to upgrade.

Hopefully that day is a good five or six years from now.  By then, something newer than Scorpio or Neo will be on the market, and VR will be cheaper than $400.

By then, the idea of having a choice will be more liberating and less intimidating, and we as a gaming culture will be looking at upgrade cylces as a freedom of choice rather than a requirement.

WWDC 2016: A Reboot for Apple

Apple's annual summer developers conference was met with mixed reviews by their adoring faithful, but it marked a much-needed return to form for the "magic" the folks in Cupertino are known for.  With a complete omission of hardware-based hype (no new iPhones, Macs, or iPads), the focus was solely on improving the "Apple experience" across every existing platform, and that is something the company desperately needed.

Just over a week ago, I proposed that Apple's muddled design language has been a sore spot for consumers even as its hardware continued to evolve (albeit at an incremental rate).  Using iTunes as the primary example, interacting with the same content across iOS, OS X, tvOS, watchOS, and even Windows is drastically, frustratingly different.  At this year's Worldwide Developers Confernce, Apple seemed determined to rectify that by not only introducing new features to each of these platforms, but redesigning the interfaces to provide a more cohesive user experience across devices.  Is it perfect?  No.  Will it solve all the problems plaguing the Apple ecosystem?  Probably not.  But it is a welcome step in a more proactive direction.  Rather than bury its head in the sand with some hyperbole about the inherent "magic" of simplicity, Apple is working hard to bring that magic back to the fore, and it showed.

In some ways, this was Apple's most Apple-like press conference in years.  Here are some of the reasons why.

Craig Federighi

As the CEO of Apple, it's Tim Cook's obligation to open and close the show.  But to say he lacks the instant charisma and presence of Steve Jobs is an understatement.  Despite getting a hearty round of applause upon gracing the stage, Cook lacks the understated "cool" factor that Jobs radiated when he was at his best.

There's nothing wrong with Tim Cook.  He's done a fine job as CEO, particularly in a time where Apple is under tremendous scrutiny by its shareholders and the government, and under immense pressure from competition like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon.  As a presenter, though, Cook feels less like a rock star and more like the boss showing up to the company picnic.  "Hi, everyone.  I'm here.  I'm in charge."

When Cook starts spouting numbers, it's with the sort of boardroom finesse of a seasoned business executive instead of the enthusiasm of someone drinking the Apple Kool-Aid.  This may seem nit-picky, but the truth is that Apple's success has less to do with "groundbreaking" products and more to do with the culture and mystique surrounding the company as a whole.  As an audience, we may love our Macbooks and iPhones, but that enthusiasm wanes after just a year of using them.  Already my iPhone 6s feels standard rather than "premium."  My 3 year-old Macbook Pro is starting to lose its luster in light of thinner, lighter, sleeker machines (even if they're grossly under-powered).  Apple's job isn't just to sell us new products and services every year, it's to re-ignite that "Reality-Distortion Field" Jobs was so famous for: pulling us back into the aura of Apple where everything is "magical" and every new product is a revelation.

Cook is not the man for that.  He does a fine job talking about Android to iOS migration, Apple's green energy initiatives, or educating the next generation of programmers, but he's not the man to be touting the "magical" new products or services we're there to see.

That's where Craig Federighi comes in.

Now, don't get me wrong.  Just watching this iOS 7 reveal video featuring Craig makes me think this guy's been brainwashed by some Apple voodoo shaman, but listen to the difference in tone from when Cook is on stage talking numbers to when Craig is on stage talking about embedding Siri into macOS.

Federighi has what Cook needs: the ability to sound truly passionate about what he's showing you.  Was anything at WWDC truly revolutionary?  No.  But I'm excited about it because Federighi made me believe these were features I not only wanted, but couldn't wait to have!  Even with hiccups in the on-stage demo and a clear fetish for emoji, the promise of more responsive apps in watchOS and a redesigned iOS Music app give me hope that my experience with the products I use every day is only going to get better.

In contrast, Apple should be keeping Eddie Cue off stage when at all possible.  Cue may be Apple royalty and a genius behind the scenes, but he was not meant to be on camera in front of a live audience.  He swaggers onto the stage in "casual" dress and a smile that's a little too happy to be there.  Whether intentional or not, it's an example of how the Apple hubris can harm when too prominently displayed.  Remember: we're attempting to distort reality, here, and Cue takes me right out of it and reminds me that this is nothing but a product demonstration by a tech company.  Cue seemed caught between being over-rehearsed, and not having rehearsed enough.  Doing his best to sound excited, he often stumbled over key parts of his presentation, always looking down at the teleprompter even as the products he talked about flashed on the screen behind him.

On the flip side, Federighi comes across like a kid in a candy store dressed like a professional adult.  His smile is the kind that's not just happy to be there, but excited to show you what he has for you. That excitement permeates the room and the audience.  When he speaks, it's deliberate but never forceful.  It's the tone someone uses when they don't want to openly disagree with you, but will give you just the right information to make you question your outlook.  He's not forcing a product in your face, he's inviting you into his world, and whether your mind realizes that or not, it makes a huge difference not just in our perception of him, but our perception of the products he's displaying.

Even moreso than Sir Jonathan Ive, Federighi carries with him a vestige of Steve Jobs: the power to change our minds, and the childlike wonder that still manages somehow to be in awe of itself.  That's where the Apple "magic" comes from, and it's very reassuring to see its return.

No Gadgets

Even if you're familiar with Apple's retail schedule and knew we wouldn't see a new iPhone until the Fall, you were probably expecting some sort of hardware unveiling at WWDC.  Rumors are still circulating about a refreshed Thunderbolt Display, an Apple Watch 2, and a refreshed Macbook line with current-gen processors and even OLED touchbars.  You probably hoped one of these would show up at WWDC.  None did.

That's a sore point for many Apple fans who get their jollies out of upgrading to the absolute latest and greatest every year, but the lack of gadgets at WWDC made one thing crystal clear to everyone watching and attending the conference:

Apple is committed to its software development community.

Obvious, right?  (Tt is a developers conference, after all!)  However, the long-reaching effects of this message may not be immediately clear.

This may seem rudimentary to the way mobile software is distributed, but we often don't take into account how developers get their software to us.

A great example is the idea of the "free app."  I know plenty of friends who simply refuse to pay for an app.  They'll use the ad-infested free version if it means they don't have to pull out their credit card.  There's something to be said for frugality, but most people don't even recall that on the other end of that app is a developer that sank time, money, and resources into getting it to you.  That $1.99 may seem like a lot, but when you consider that Apple takes a 30% cut of every app purchased, suddenly your $1.99 becomes less than $1.40.  A cup of coffee costs more than that.

It's not just Apple doing this.  Virtually every mobile app store follows the model established by iOS.

Developers often feel powerlessly beholden to this business model, since there's no other way for them to get their software on the device aside from asking users to jailbreak their phones.  They're expected to just "suck it up".  It may not be a big deal for a game like Angry Birds, which has been downloaded millions of times across multiple platforms, but it is a big deal for the small studio putting out an app or a game for the first time.  Not only is it difficult to get people to pay for an app from an un-established company, but doing so then means that Apple is still entitled to 1/3 of the revenue just for hosting the app in their store.

Conversely, the App Store in OS X is at a crossroads as well.  The difference here is that developers have a work-around: rather than hosting their software through Apple's App Store, they can just direct users to download their software directly from their own website.  If I want a copy of, say, Scrivener, I can download it directly from the App Store, or I can go to Scrivener's website and download it there.  The latter bypasses Apple completely and ensures that the money I fork over for the software goes directly into the developers' pockets.

Apple is all-too aware of this, and has decided to rethink its model.  Soon, Apple will take just 15% of app purchases, effectively cutting its share in half and ensuring that developers receive up to 85% of the money paid for their software.

That sounds generous by Apple, and it is.  It's very possible Apple will see a significant drop in App Store revenue because of this, and that's a risky situation considering shareholders like to pay attention to things like revenue streams.  What choice does Apple have?  They could simply keep the existing model and force developers to eat the cost of doing business with them.  But that's not exactly prudent on Apple's part.

Why not?  Because any anti-Apple zealot will tell you, Android is the most widely used mobile OS in the world.  Now, we can get into the minutiae of the plethora of devices Android runs on (everything from $50 phones to $1,000 tablets), but the truth is that while iOS may be perceived as the standard-bearer for mobile computing, Android is the system more people see every day.  It's the Windows 95 to iOS's Mac OS.  It may not be as flashy, but it's flexible, customizeable, and growing more capable every day.

Apple can still pull the "But we're Apple," card, but if we're talking sheer numbers, developers who want to get their apps on the most devices develop it for Android.

By cutting their revenue in half, Apple is practically begging developers to keep iOS at the forefront of their development cycle, and that's very good for developers and users alike.  It ensures that developers get the exposure they want on all platforms without the penalty of loss of revenue, and it ensure that iOS users get the best and widest selection of apps available.

A Better Experience

There was another message sent by Apple on Monday, and while it's a positive one, it's distinctly un-Apple-like.

Contrary to what they might have you believe, Apple is very much aware that its software isn't perfect and is committed to improving the experience of its software across devices.

Right out of the gate, Apple's vice president of technology Kevin Lynch admitted that load times for for watchOS were poor, to say the least.  An on-screen demonstration showed us waiting several seconds between the time we tapped an app to the time the app appeared ready.  To remedy this, Lynch described watchOS 3 as being able to keep certain apps running the background and constantly refreshing so they would be instantly accessible at a touch.  (There was no word on how this would affect the Watch's battery life.)

Without outright saying, "We know it takes apps forever to load on Apple Watch," and using positive language like, "You deserve apps on Apple Watch that respond as seamlessly as apps on your iPhone" (paraphrasing), Apple manages to come out looking like a hero for addressing a problem that's existed since the launch of Apple Watch over a year ago.

The same can be said for the Music app in iOS.  Even though he didn't outright declare what a mess the current Apple Music app is, Eddie Cue was adamant about the ease and beauty of the new user interface.

tvOS gets new features like the ability to download corresponding apps when they are downloaded on your iOS devices (i.e. download ESPN app on iPhone, it appears on AppleTV).

And of course, OS X--or rather macOS--now gets Siri and a host of other features that go along with that.

Apple probably could've held a press conference on iOS alone (which might have made the duration of its Messages demo a little more bearable), but instead it presented a picture of a cohesive experience and commitment to improvement across all major platforms, and that's something they should be commended for.

Not every problem will be fixed by the Fall roll-out of these updates, but it does show that Apple is at least listening to its customers and trying its best to improve the experience without sacrificing the parts that make it uniquely "Apple."

So, no, you won't be able to brag about being the first of your friends to get the newest iPhone.  And yes, October will most likely bring with it the promise of new Macbooks, iPhones, and maybe even a new Apple Watch, so you have that to look forward to.

But even if you don't buy a new Apple product this year: even if you're still rocking that old 4th-gen iPad from 2012, Apple has promised you that your experience with those products will get better this year.

And that is something to be excited about.

Sony Wins E3 (Again)

Even as a Sony fanboy, I was ready to concede to Microsoft following their E3 Press Conference.  New, exclusive games, cross-platform cohesion, and the addition of two new consoles gave the folks from Redmond a huge head start early Monday afternoon.  All the heavy hitters were there, including a new Gears of War and Halo Wars, as well as Sea of Thieves that had me salivating for the competing console.

In addition to its software, Microsoft beefed up the hardware with the introduction of the Xbox One S: a slimmed down version of the flagship console that now supports 4K video output for movies and TV shows.  But what about 4K games, you ask?  Well, they took care of that, too with a brief video package for Project Scorpio: Microsoft's next big leap forward in the console space.  Unlike either of its predecessors from this generation, Scorpio promises to finally deliver the dream of 4K gaming to the console market as well as support for the burgeoning realm of virtual reality gaming.

The best part?  All consoles would be compatible with all software.  In other words, games for Xbox One would be playable on both Xbox One S and Project Scorpio (Xbox Scorpio?)  As Xbox Chief Phil Spencer put it, "No one gets left behind!"

It was a pretty sweet salvo that I'm sure was intended to take some of the shine off Sony, who has roundly been considered the "winner" of E3 since the launch of the PS4.  And while new hardware was rumored and even confirmed by people from within the company, I don't think anyone could imagine that Sony would not only win E3, but do so without revealing a Playstation 4.5.

But they did, and here's the five reasons why:

1.)  God of War (4)

The opening moments of a press conference often dictate the tone for the next hour or so.  Generally, these openings feature a video package showcasing the brand and major IP's from first and third-party developers.  You'll then see the host of the conference emerge to talk about how great their hardware and games are, and then they'll start unveiling some game trailers.

Sony bypassed most of that.  After an extended opening overture by an in-house orchestra, the curtains rose and the lights dimmed to reveal the familiar "Sony Interactive Entertainment Presents" title screen.

Rather than showing us a three-minute glimpse of whatever lay beyond, we were treated to real-time gameplay of a young boy in an ancient village.  As the audience wondered what franchise we were looking at, they collectively gasped and applauded when a hitherto disembodied voice emerged from shadow to reveal the aged, yet iconic Kratos.  What followed was a solid ten minutes of third-person gameplay unlike anything God of War fans have seen before.

It was an astounding way to grab the audiences attention and keep them glued to the stage, and it set the tone for a press conference tailored for Playstation gamers (more on that later).

2.)  Kojima & Reedus: Death Stranding

If returning IP's weren't enough, returning developers were even better.

The reveal of Hideo Kojima was received with the type of fanfare usually reserved for rock stars.  What followed was an enigmatic trailer featuring a naked Norman Reedus in a desolate wasteland cradling an infant that may or may not really exist.  Little is known about Death Stranding, but the promise of Kojima's genius seeps from every pore and leaves the audience straining for piece of what comes next.

3.)  10/25/16

Chances are, even if you're not good with dates, you'll have a hard time forgetting this one.

The first hint at a new title from Shadow of the Colossus developer ICO was dropped as far back as 2008, where they confirmed they were working on a new IP for the freshly released Playstation 3.  Another article two years later suggested it was at one point slated for a 2011 release.  Almost five years and an entire console-generation later, The Last Guardian re-emerged at E3 last year to deafening applause, and while we were given some actual gameplay to admire, we still had no idea when we'd get our hands on it.

That question was answered yesterday, when the latest trailer revealed an official release date for the long-awaited title.  Unlike many of the games showcased at E3 that were scheduled for release next year, fans were elated to learn they would only have to wait a little over four months to play a game that--at this point--has little choice but to live up to the hype.

4.)  Games.  Just Games.

Unlike every other press conference at E3, Sony took a minimalist approach to their own.  The hour-long showcase featured little talking.  Aside from Hideo Kojima, no developers were featured on-stage.  Instead, the focus was on games and gameplay.  Even those demoing the software were hidden backstage with their output being projected onto the screen.

Don't get me wrong: E3 is a tremendous opportunity for gamers to get a glimpse of the people that work so hard to deliver the entertainment they love.  There is no reason developers shouldn't be a prominently featured part of a game-centric expo.

But by cutting down on the chatter, Sony managed to enthrall gamers with one hit after another.  Much of the conference was little more than gameplay and trailers shown back-to-back-to-back.

From God of War to Final Fantasy XV to Horizon: Zero Dawn, Sony was relentless in its focus and execution.  The press event flew by as we were whisked from one title to the next with little more to indicate a transition than a few moments of silence as we held our breath for what lay ahead.

Sure, it felt like one, big, hour-long commercial, but it was a commercial you couldn't step away from.

5.)  Playstation VR

No matter which camp you belong to, VR was on display in a big way at E3 2016.  Whether it was Bethesda's promise of a truly immersive Fallout 4, Microsoft's commitment to all-new VR-ready hardware, or Ubisoft transporting us to the final frontier, it's clear that even while virtual reality gaming may be in its infancy, it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

With the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive now available to PC gamers, the question was how Microsoft and Sony (and presumably Nintendo at some point) would bring the VR experience to the console community.  Would living room gamers be willing to pay upwards of $600 for a peripheral and possibly purchase another console to drive it after just investing in new hardware less than four years ago?

Sony answered these questions by not only unveiling a $399 headset (that's $200 cheaper than the Oculus Rift and $300 cheaper than the HTC Vive), but assured the Sony faithful that these headsets would work on the consoles they were gaming on right now.  Sony accomplishes this by including a "processor unit" in the box that plugs into the PS4 to handle the extra power needed to get the expected performance out of the system.  An extra $100 gets you the Playstation Camera and two Playstation Move controllers.

The announcement was similar to when Sony unveiled the Playstation 4 back in 2013: undercutting the Xbox One price point by $100.  I have little doubt Sony is going to be selling these headsets at a loss in the hopes that the games draw people into their ecosystem, but it's an impressive feat nonetheless that makes VR instantly more attractive to casual gamers.

Sony started off strong with this console generation, and judging from its track record over the past three years, it has no intention of letting up anytime soon.

Extreme Makeover: iTunes Edition

Think back to your first iPod.  Chances are we all remember something different: some had the physical wheel of clicky buttons, others had the smooth touch interface of the click wheel.  Still others may have had one of the early iPod Touch models.  I remember being truly enraptured by the boundless possibilities of having 20GB of music in my pocket, available to me at a moment's notice with the simple scroll of the responsive click wheel and the glow of that grayscale screen backlit in blue.

I also remember the seamlessness of iTunes: importing my considerable collection of CD's and allowing them to mingle with new music I was purchasing from the store at $0.99 each.  I was hesitant to commit to a purely digital listening experience and clung to buying CD's for a couple of years afterward, but by 2007 I was a full-fledged believer and haven't bought a physical CD in some years.

iTunes seemed almost as magical as the iPod itself: add your music, plug in your iPod, hit the "Sync" button, and voila!  Your music in your pocket!

As the iPod continued to evolve, so did iTunes.  In addition to music, we were soon able to purchase music videos, movies, and listen to podcasts; and all of it could be synced with our beloved iPod.

Then the iPhone and the App Store arrived.  Soon, customers were downloading their entertainment on the go.  No need to "plug in" to iTunes.  You want a new album to listen to?  Go get it!  It's right there in your hand!

To say that iTunes has not aged well in the post-smartphone age is an understatement.  The program continues to be an amalgamation (or abomination) of functions that seem both half-baked and antiquated.  Even the name, "iTunes" harkens back to an era where digital music was a novel concept.  It speaks nothing of the full breadth of content the app attempts to juggle.

The end result is a convoluted mess that tries to balance a plethora of functions, but does none of them particularly well.  Following a redesign that attempted to give iTunes a "simpler" interface, Apple recently returned to the classic "sidebar" after users complained of not being able to navigate the app intuitively.

Speaking of which, has anyone tried to import a CD, lately?  Let's put aside the fact that Apple doesn't include an optical drive on any of its computers (save for the aged 13" Macbook Pro that's cleverly hidden at the bottom of its webpage).  Let's just focus on the act of importing a CD.  Upon inserting the disc, iTunes will, with an impressive degree of reliability, search its database to see which disc you've given it.  It automatically fills out track names and will even grab the album artwork.  In most cases, it will ask you at once if you want to import the disc into your library.

Now, if you're like me and a little OCD about your music, you like to have everything conform to a particular standard: most of my music is imported at 192kbps (a nice balance between quality and storage).  Since I hadn't imported a disc in years, and never configured the import settings on my iMac where most of my music is stored, I figured I'd double-check my settings.  So when iTunes asked me if I wanted to import the disc, I said, "no."  Instead I went into the Preferences to find out what my import settings were.

Confirming the settings was one thing.  Getting back to the disc was quite another.  Even now, I can't recall what I had to click to get back to the "Import" screen.  Suffice to say there was some Googling involved.  (Keep in mind, this was before Apple restored the sidebar, which clearly shows the disc as a mounted device in iTunes).

Okay, that's a minor complaint.  Aside from audio enthusiasts who crave pristine, CD-quality sound, I can't imagine there are too many people importing CD's into iTunes these days.  I could go on about the many issues with the Music portion of iTunes (like iCloud Music wreaking havoc on users' libraries), but let's see what else goes on in iTunes.

Video.  Sounds simple, right?

iTunes breaks video down into three primary categories: Movies, Music Videos, and TV Shows.  Once purchased from the video section of the iTunes Store, they appear in their respective sections in iTunes.  That's all well and good if your primary viewing experience is in front of your laptop or desktop.  But this is the age of AirPlay and Chromecast.  The idea of sitting in front of a dedicated device to watch anything other than a YouTube video is archaic.

So let's pull that video up on our iPad, shall we?  You'll stumble a bit, here, if you're a first-time iTunes movie user.  Whereas video is an embedded function in the iTunes desktop app, Video is its own dedicated app in iOS.  So rather than clicking on the Music app (whose icon still bears a resemblance to the desktop iTunes client), you're actually going to click on "Video", and then navigate to the kind of video you downloaded per the three categories above.

Downloading a podcast?  Same deal.  You can subscribe to and sync your podcasts in iTunes.  You would think the Music app would be where to find them on your iPhone (I mean, it's still audio, at least).  But Podcasts is its own app as well, and unless it's something you use regularly, you'll likely have to remember where you left it when you moved it off the main pane of your Home Screen.




There's little consistency to the design language between iTunes and its iOS counterparts.  What was once seamless and "magical" is now confusing and frustrating.  Finding content in iTunes is vastly different from finding it on your iOS device, and that's not even including a device like the Apple TV, which while similar to iOS, speaks yet another design dialect.

What's baffling is that Apple has already established a more consistent design language for its apps, but only in a few instances.

Firstly, there is iBooks.  Granted, iBooks are still synced via iTunes, but the actual purchasing and reading of iBooks is delegated to its own app both in iOS and OS X.  If I want to download a digital copy of Treasure Island, I open the iBooks icon on my Mac and purchase the book.  With my Apple ID, the purchase is synced over iCloud, and I can pick up my iPad, open the iBooks app, and see that the book I just purchased is ready for me to read.

Furthermore, we can take the iWork suite of apps: Pages, Numbers, and Keynote.  Each of these apps allows me to create content on my computer, save it to iCloud Drive, and open it on my iPad or iPhone using the same, respective apps.

Anyone who's used a 90's-era Macintosh may remember AppleWorks: the Apple equivalent of the ubiquitous Microsoft Office suite.  It had one icon.  Clicking on it presented you with a choice of what you wanted to create: a word processing document, spreadsheet, slideshow, or database.  It was the "iTunes" of Apple office software.  At the time, it was convenient not having to scroll through the hundreds of programs on my Mac to find the one function of AppleWorks I wanted.  This philosophy is probably the reason Apple is hesitant to disband iTunes in 2016, but it actively conflicts with their overall design.

A couple of years ago, Apple overhauled the look of its desktop operating system to more closely resemble the look and feel of iOS 7.  There's a clear dedication by Apple to develop a uniform language for its interfaces across mobile and desktop platforms.  The Pages icon in OS X is the same icon I click on in iOS.  The same goes for Maps, Notes, Calendar, Mail, Safari, Contacts, and many other native applications, the exception being iTunes.

For people who own smartphones (regardless of platform), iTunes is largely obsolete beyond the scope of media playback.  Virtually all the content I can access in iTunes is accessible directly from any of my devices.  But playback is still important.  If I'm writing, I don't want to have to type on my laptop while relying on my iPhone for something to listen to.

Rather than insisting that iTunes be a catch-all for my digital entertainment, spinning each of those components off into their own apps would not only make the design more consistent across platforms, but it will trim down iTunes (preferably renamed simply, "Music") and allow programmers to focus on making it a better music player and organizer.  By giving each of these functions their own app, we get both a cleaner workflow and more intuitive, consistent interfaces.  Each piece of content is already synced over iCloud, so there's no reason to force users to open iTunes to ensure the content is shared properly.

With iCloud, Apple promised us a world in which our mobile devices would no longer be tethered to our aging, stationary desktop computing lives.  To fully embrace that future, we need to cut our dependence on legacy apps and services.  At the backbone of its "magic", Apple has long contended that "less is more."  In this case, however, "more" may be "less."