5 reasons why you should NOT buy the new iPad.

I feel bad for electronic giants like Samsung, Sony and HTC. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on R&D (and cheap labor) and come up with some of the most advanced devices that mankind has to offer. And all Apple has to do is launch the same damn thing with slightly upgraded specs and the rest of the industry is back to being a loser.

This cycle repeats itself every year. And the world never gets over it. I think the most hard-working people at Apple were the ones who designed the first iPhone/iPad. After that, the whole company has merely just sat back and sipped coffee. And in between the numerous coffee breaks, they manage to squeeze in some work. But of course, the billions of dollars never stop rolling in.

Anyways the main purpose of this article is to give a “scientific” opinion on why you should skip this new iPad and just wait for the next one (or the one after that).

Let’s get started:

1) RETINA DISPLAY – The biggest selling point of the new iPad is the “mind-blowing” Retina Display. Well, let’s do some quick digging here. According to Apple’s own definition, Retina Display means that the human eye won’t notice any pixelation on a screen like this. Many prominent researchers have concluded that for this to happen, the density of a screen needs to be atleast 300 Pixels Per Inch (PPI). 

Apple definitely made sure of that when it came to the iPhone 4 and 4s. Both these phones have a screen density of 326 PPI which is much more than what is needed for picture perfect graphics. But the new iPad only has a 264 PPI density. That’s 10% less than what’s recommended for zero pixelation (atleast for the human eye). How exactly is this classified as Retina Display then? Either Apple decided to change its definition of what Retina Display should mean, or this is just false advertising.

Some people might argue that since the iPad is viewed from a slightly longer distance as compared to the iPhone, the lower density of the iPad is not an issue. That's a valid point, but the general consensus among all retinal scientists is that a minimum density of 300 PPI is required for the human eye to not be able to notice any pixelation from any distance. That's why it's also recommended that a good photograph should be printed in at atleast 300 PPI when using a regular printer.

Don’t get me wrong here. The new iPad definitely has amazing clarity. I personally loved some of the apps that were being showcased, but the point here is that this screen is still not Retina Display grade, and hopefully the next one will be. That’s reason number one.

2) APPS NOT OPTIMIZED – One of the biggest selling points for the new iPad is the apps ecosystem. Well, the problem here is that almost 95% of all iPad apps are not even optimized for the retina display. These apps were all built to cater to the older resolution, and given the nature of this industry, it will take atleast 6 months or more before most popular iPad apps get optimized. And the less popular apps will probably take more than a year to do this. What does that mean? It means that by the time the next iPad is out, we will have a far greater selection of apps that have been reconfigured for this screen. So there is reason number two on why you should wait for the next iPad.

3) NOT QUAD CORE – At a time when pretty much every other device manufacturer is launching phones and tablet PC’s with quad-core processors as well as insane graphical capabilities, I still don’t understand why Apple had to go ahead and include a dual-core processor. Yes they put in a quad-core graphics processor but that’s not the point here. Apple is the king of the herd when it comes to holding back specs.  

To be honest, there are really no games or apps out there that will even require quad-core processing capabilities at this time, but for tech lovers like me, technology is our version of bling. We love insane specs, and Samsung does a good job of fulfilling these desires.

If Apple had included a quad-core processor, a lot of companies would have already started planning out even more powerful apps and games that can leverage such a system. And it would have also given the signal that Apple really is at the forefront of technology. Quad-core tablets from other manufacturers have already been around for almost 6 months now. And by the time Apple does this, we might actually have 6-core/8-core processors.

By holding back like this, Apple is only slowing down the whole creative process for developers. It just makes sense to wait till the next one comes out (hopefully with quad-core awesomeness). There is reason number 3.

4) CAMERA (Or the lack of it) –

Retina Display: Check.

Quad Core Graphics: Check.

LTE – Check.

Great Battery life: Check.

5 MP camera: Seriously??

I mean seriously, Apple already has an awesome 8MP camera built into the iPhone 4S. How hard was it to just put in the same camera into the new iPad? It would have cost them less to include the same hardware rather than create another lower grade camera from scratch. This is ridiculous.

At one time, it looked really stupid to use the iPad as a camera. But as always, the stupidity is now spread all over (including me). Most of us have used our iPads to click pictures and take videos. And with the advent of some great photo apps like Camera+, Snapseed, Instagram etc, it really wouldn’t have hurt to have a great camera on the iPad.

One of the reasons the Samsung Google Nexus smartphone did not do as well as expected (it’s now selling for $400 off the shelf) was because it was feature-packed with every awesome spec you could imagine, but those morons just had to spoil the show by including a shitty 5 MP camera.

The only reasonable (and confident) conclusion here is that the next iPad will have an 8MP camera. So there is reason number 4.

5) NO SIRI – Personally, I don’t like Siri. She never seems to understand fully well what I am saying and keeps asking me again and again what I just said (we all know someone like that, don't we!).

Jokes aside, Siri has a lot of potential. And as Apple refines this product with each new iteration, it will slowly become a great tool for everyday use. I can see this product being implemented in every Apple device in the future (including their supposedly rumored Apple TV).

I don’t understand why this product was not included in the new iPad. It would have only helped the company in reaching out to a much wider demographic. The fact that it was not included shows that Apple wants to wait till Siri has matured to some extent and then incorporate it. And that can only mean one thing, she is gonna be implemented in the next iPad. There is reason number 5.

So that’s it. I can safely assume that the next iPad will have a quad core CPU, an 8MP camera, higher number of optimized apps and Siri. All these will make it come close to becoming the most perfect tablet ever built. And it will also bring the device on par with other more advanced tablets (hardware-wise) being built by Samsung, Sony etc. And if Apple can do something about that Retina Display fiasco, no one (including me) will have any pet-peeves about the device.

You can follow me on Twitter @aabidsiddique or check out my other articles on aabids.blogspot.com.

8 reasons why Apple's iOS will continue to reign over Android as the best platform for making games.

Google recently claimed that 500,000 Android devices are getting activated every single day! At this rate, there will be more phones than people in the next few years. 

But does that mean it's time game developers started focusing their energies on building games for Android, and focused less on Apple? I am not sure if that's a good idea. Atleast as of now. Here are 8 reasons why:

1) Screen Sizes: One big advantage of Apple devices is that there are only 2 screen sizes that game developers have to deal with; the 3.5 inch screen size for the iPod/iPhones and the 9.7 inch for the iPad. This makes it easier and cheaper for developers to focus on building out UI and graphic assets that cater to only these sizes.

Android devices on the other hand, have an average of 20 different screen sizes! There are about 14 different screen sizes for the phones and another 5-6 screen sizes for the tablet versions. Building out art assets that don’t get distorted on such a large variety of screens can be a hard if not futile task. A lot of developers talk about using vector images so that the image can automatically adjust to the screen size without losing much resolution. However, based on my personal experience, this does not always give you the best results. The biggest problem I have faced is that the images on the screen tend to get displaced or lose their proportionality. This can look odd making the game lose credibility.

2) Playable on tablets: Almost every iPhone/iPod app can be played directly on the iPad. This feature is almost native to Apple and will most probably be hard to implement on Android. People who have used the iPad must have noticed the 2x button which enlarges the app window to somewhat fill the iPad screen. Even though the resolution goes down, in many games, it’s not a big deal.  This is one of the crucial reasons for iPad’s success: A user can port all his apps from his iPhone/iPod to the iPad and continue using them. So, a game developer who builds games for the iPhone/iPod automatically makes it available for the iPad too.

Doing this on an Android will be very hard because of the variety of sizes it offers.

3) Varying hardware specs: This is another issue that Android developers often face. Android phones are offered in many different hardware configurations. Simple flash games can pretty much run the same way on any phone. But, as the games get more sophisticated like the ones Gameloft makes, it gets harder to build a game that can give you the same gameplay experience on so many different Android phones with varying hardware specs.  Try playing a high-end Gameloft game on the dual-core HTC EVO 3D and then play the same game on a Motorola Droid X and you will know what I am talking about.

Apple, for that matter only upgrades its hardware once a year. This makes it easy for developers to build a game that’s optimized for that hardware configuration. It also helps maintain a more consistent gameplay experience across its phones.

4) Pricing confusion: This one may surprise you, but figuring out how much to charge for a game/in-app purchasing is a headache for most mobile game developers. The reason is that a lot of mobile games are being developed by independent/garage developers who are more technically sound but have limited understanding of how marketing/distribution/monetization works. They live under that notion that all they have to do is build the game and put it up on the app store and Apple will make them a millionaire the next day.

These developers often struggle to figure out what’s the best price to charge for their games and what’s the best way to market them. There are so many developers who end up putting their games up for free and rely solely on ad revenue only because they are not sure how to price their apps. This ‘strategy’ can sell their games well but it does not help them financially. They end up losing big time in the long run, especially if the game is good and becomes successful.

There are a ton of companies that have mastered the marketing/distribution model of the Apple App Store. Companies like W3i technologies (www.w3i.com) have done exceedingly well in this space. Such companies can be a big help for all types of developers, new and seasoned. But, there are only a handful of companies that even understand how monetization on Android works best. It will take a while before companies build their expertise for this platform. 

Apple makes it easy for young and upcoming developers by offering them a standard pricing model. It’s known that the magic number on the app store is 99 cents with dollar increments. This makes it easy for developers to stick to a standardized price tag which is proven to be a successful revenue generator if the app does well.  On top of that, Apple’s in-app purchasing model is a boon for free games.

On the other hand, Android has no structured pricing model attached to it. An app can be priced anyway the developer wants. (There are apps for $1.26 (Who charges like that?!). As simple as this may sound, it can be hard for a garage developer to figure out what’s the best price they can charge in order to stay competitive. Especially when a game is charged at $1.49 and another developer charges a similar type of game for $1.26 or $1.33. It leads to a lot of unhealthy competition.

Due to the highly fragmented pricing model of the Android, it makes sense for young studios to stick to iOS initially and then branch out to Android once the game takes off.

5) Resolution: This can be a real pain in the neck to deal with. I am currently building out a game for iOS and I only had to contract a graphic designer to build two different resolutions of each art asset. One was for the earlier screen res of 320*480 and the other was for the Retina Display. The designer only charged about 10% more for building two different resolutions.

Let's talk Android now! This beast has so many screen resolutions to deal with that it is going to cost a whole lot more if I had to build graphic assets for an Android game. Again, the standard of vector images does not always work too well because these are games with constantly refreshing pixels/screens and not a static app.

The way my earlier company ended up handling this is that we stuck to the top selling Android phones and only built art assets that catered to those devices (HTC EVO 4G, Samsung Epic, Droid etc). One problem with this approach is that most manufacturers don’t give out exact data on how many smart phones they sell. So, game developers are really just shooting in the dark here.

6) Demographics: Guess which is the best customer base for monetizing social/casual games? Its middle-aged/older women between the ages of 35 to 55! This is the demographic that has the time to play such games especially freemium/paid games. This is the demographic that has disposable income, uses credit cards and is fairly open to online transactions. The other positive aspect of this segment is that they are willing to consume lots of content in their favorite genres. If they bought one game and liked it, they are likely to buy more of the same.

Because of this same reason, this demographic is targeted by every gaming portal too. Companies like Hi5 and IWON have thrived in this space. Other than that boys and girls between the ages of 6 to 15 are considered an excellent demographic for free games.

Here is a question (Quick hint: Don’t think too hard). What phone or mobile gaming device do you think the majority of these 2 demographics will want? iPhones and iPods! Apple literally rules this demographic and Android does not even come a distant second. Most people in these two demographics who even have Android phones only have it because their carrier does not support iPhones yet. A recent survey claimed that even the ones who currently use Android phones are more than likely to switch to an iPhone once their carrier supports it.

This is the biggest reasons why games on Apple devices do far better than Android devices even though there are more Android devices in the planet as of now.

And Android phones actually have a learning curve and tend to be more geeky in nature. My mom still hasn’t figured out her phone even after months of using it. But it took her literally minutes to start using the iPhone. That's the beauty of the Apple OS. It's made for everyone.

7) Low quality apps: The Android app store has made it so easy for developers to build and distribute games/apps for this platform that a lot of low quality (shitty) apps have creeped into the store. I saw an app a while ago that was retailing for $10,000! And the description of the app was something like "I just wanna see who is dumb enough to buy this app".  It had 5 installs.

Google has been very supportive of the games industry by offering an open system but it has to tighten the screws here if it wants its apps to reach a certain threshold of quality. This is the reason why it is struggling with its mobile operating system too. There is so much segregation going on because each phone maker like HTC, Samsung, Motorola etc has built its own UI, that Google had to put the brakes on this and focus on building a unified Android experience with its upcoming Ice Cream Sandwich OS.

In contrast, Apple’s strict approval policies are actually good for the industry. Apple tries hard to maintain a certain level of quality in its apps and this benefits developers.

8) Resource Intensive: Ever noticed how almost every Google smartphone/superphone has battery problems? There is a good reason for this. Google products tend to be very resource intensive in nature. For example, the Google Maps navigation tool is one of the best navigation software I have come across. It’s an excellent substitute for GPS devices. But, this app absolutely kills battery life. Even other frequently used features like corporate email, gmail and the notifications bar can drain the battery out a lot faster than similar apps that Apple has built.

Google’s support for Flash games has not helped its case either. There is a solid reason why Apple hates Flash. Flash based games/apps can be a drain on battery life and graphics. They are rarely very robust or fast to load and almost all of them tend to crash often. Due to this, most of these Flash games on the Android cannot be played for too long before a user has to start snooping around for a charger. The whole notion of ‘truly mobile’ gaming is lost here. Whenever I am traveling and feel like playing a game on my Android, I normally have to shut off the game after about 30 minutes of playing because the battery literally goes down from 80% to 30%. My point here is that most avid gamers would not find the gaming environment too satisfactory in an Android device.

I had the iPhone for a long time and though the battery power wasn’t stellar, I didn’t have trouble playing a game for a satisfactory period of time. This is because of HTML5. It’s a simpler, less resource intensive, yet a very robust platform for developing games.

HTML5 is seeing widespread adoption because of this very reason. Even its arch-nemesis Adobe (creators of Flash) has finally given up and is now supporting HTML5 with its own set of HTML5 builder toolsets.

In summary, I don’t see how Apple will be beaten by Google anytime soon. There is just too much clutter surrounding Google’s Android offering in order for it to become a financially viable platform for game developers. Once Google tweaks its offerings to have a more unified UI experience, fewer screen sizes and resolutions, better pricing models and tighter control over its app store, only then will it become a lucrative platform for game developers.