jballer

Where for art thou PDF?

Condé Nast’s iPad magazines are really fat. And for the same reason why Apple doesn’t like Flash: their apps don’t efficiently use the iPad’s native implementations. Here, the issue is text and image rendering. With Flash, the main issue is H.264.

each Wired issue is actually a bunch of XML files that lay out a bunch of images. And by “a bunch of images” I mean 4,109 images weighing in at 397MB.

[Is This Really The Future of Magazines or Why Didn’t They Just Use HTML 5?]

for the moment, Adobe doesn’t have the ability to break up HTML text into individual pages

[Condé Nast’s iPad Apps Are Too Portly. Blame Adobe.]

Condé Nast relies on Adobe’s Digital Viewer, which was released just after Apple’s infamous ban on third-party development frameworks. Adobe had to custom-build the Objective-C code.

Why don’t they use PDF’s? I mean, it’s coming from Adobe! CS5 could export PDF’s, preserve vector graphics and text to reduce the file size. Then the app could present them in the unique layout.

Is there any technical limitation that prevents iOS from doing this with PDF’s?

My best guess is that Adobe is afraid to rely on Quartz’s PDF rendering. They’ve been planning this as a cross-platform digital reader, and WebKit rendering will be more consistent.

Finally, Some Competition!

RIM just announced the PlayBook, and it looks like the first iOS competitor that’s playing to win.

The Real Comparison

Apple made some compromises with the iPad (i.e. only h.264 video) because, in exchange, they got ≥10 hours of I-can’t-believe-it’s-still-not-plugged-in usage, at a sub-$500 price point.

Each of RIM’s marketing bullet-points for the PlayBook is a short-sighted jab at the iPad’s compromises. And the spec list looks like it exists for the sole purpose of overwhelming consumers.

Battery

Here’s a fun game: try to find the word “battery” in the PlayBook press release.

If battery life was as remarkable as it should be, RIM would have something to say about it. It’s really great that they managed to get a dual-core processor and 1GB of RAM. But this thing is going to be a flop if it’s an inefficient power hog.

Tethering

They apparently have a cellular model in the pipeline, and this will give their WiFi model a real advantage over the iPad WiFi. I welcome the competition, and it makes me hopeful that Apple can get AT&T to let iPad owners tether to their iPhones.

Third-Party App Quality

RIM has not announced a native SDK. Developers can use either HTML5 or Flash. Shit sandwich, anyone?

Looks like Flash isn’t going down without a fight. While all signs point to this being more of a high-profile death than a triumphant revival, it’ll be fun to watch either way.

Windows Phone 7 Looks Unusable

Engadget: Windows Phone 7 videos

we get a quick look at the Word editor — and as you might expect, it’s squeaky-clean and nearly UI-free, just like pretty much everything else in the platform.

It’s all black-and-white, and there’s no cursor or control highlighting.

“UI-free” might look cool, but where do you tap?

Watch @ 1:08 in the second video:

• Tap “add comment” button
• Tap to select the only visible text field
• There’s no indication of when it’s actually selected
• There’s no cursor while typing

Apple Sued Think Secret’s Editor for Trade Secret Misappropriation

I found some gems in these old CNET articles:

Apple suit foreshadows coming products (1/5/05):

Apple said in a statement to CNET News.com that the company’s “DNA is innovation, and the protection of our trade secrets is crucial to our success.”

Apple says the article “disclosed numerous confidential details regarding the technical capabilities of Apple’s unreleased computer product as well as Apple’s confidential marketing plans.”

Student seeks legal help in Apple case (1/17/05):

an attorney for… the Electronic Frontier Foundation… has claimed that…Ciarelli is being directly sued for trade secret misappropriation.

Gizmodo’s Trade Secret Liability

A number of sources have turned to Ian Betteridge’s thoughtful analysis of the Gizmodo saga. I believe that, because he failed to address California law, Ian was too quick to dismiss the possibility of trade secret claims by Apple. As Ian points out, Federal law requires “reasonable measures” to protect a trade secret, and he readily concluded (based mostly on analogy) that allowing the iPhone out in public is unreasonable per se.¹

California, however, only requires measures that are reasonable under the circumstances. While the model UTSA would only protect information that is “not… readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons,” California struck this wording from in its version. Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d). Apple needed to field-test these phones, and arguably met this burden by placing the testers under NDA’s comparable to Top Secret clearance. 

If the owner accidentally or mistakenly reveals a trade secret to X, and X knows that it’s a trade secret, X is liable for disclosing it publicly. § 3426.1(b)(2)(C). Therefore, Apple would only have to show that Gizmodo knew or reason to know, before publication, that the prototype was a trade secret.

If Gizmodo is found liable, Apple would recover its own losses as well as any gain that Gizmodo received as a result of the disclosure. § 3426.3(a).

However, Gizmodo’s entire purpose was to discover and disclose as much as they could (read: maximize the damage) before posting a single word. They didn’t pay $5000 to buy the phone, they paid $5000 for the ability to convert Apple’s secrets into their profit. They went out of their way to document everything before saying anything so that, upon the expected demand for its return, they could “immediately” and publicly act like they were doing Apple a favor. Given that these are the facts according to Gizmodo, I expect that a court would find their actions willful and malicious and award up to 2x the original damages. § 3426.3(c).

¹ In any event, I expect court could get past the question of whether a trade secret exists by simply applying equitable estoppel. This would tell Gizmodo, in essence, “you acted like this was a trade secret, don’t try to tell us that it’s not.”