I noticed the in application browser used in iPad (and iPhone) apps doesn't reveal the URL when you visit it. A shortened URL displays in the title bar until the redirect is completed, then the <title> is shown.

It might be a good idea to allow the URL to be revealed by tapping the title, so you can tell if you're being duped.

These examples are taken from Twitterific iPad.

Yesterday's flurry of coverage of the Apple vs. Adobe on Flash debate got me thinking about something I saw at SXSW. A panel with a rep from Adobe and a bunch of web developers talking about Canvas (HTML5) vs. Flash.

Right now I think Adobe's got their hands full trying to push Flash out to as many mobile platforms as possible. That's the Flash Player, not Flash tools. That's a pretty crippling position to be in.

I think the first software company to get to the table with an awesome development tool for Canvas is going to make a shitload of money.

Right now Microsoft is probably better poised for this than anyone else. If they can get Canvas development tools in their Expression suite of products they're going to be a mile ahead. They've already said they're going to support a lot of the HTML5 spec in IE9. It might be their shot at bringing in market share they've lost to Firefox, Safari and Chrome over the last few years.

Will Adobe have the sense to start building on Flash so it can make Canvas happen for the designer/developer segment? I'm not sure. They seem pretty hell-bent on Flash Flash Flash. 

This morning I realized that Tweetie 2 was available. I opened the App Store on my iPhone and it wasn’t in the Updates section. It took me a sec, then I decided to search for it.

Sure enough, there it was.

It got me thinking: Why doesn’t the App Store have an option for developers to release “Paid updates”? Without that option it'll make it harder for app developers to promote their updates, since people can continue using the original application blissfully unaware of the update.

As an aside: Tweetie 2 is the best way to interact with Twitter on any platform.

Aesthetics, performance and software are my considerations when choosing a computer. Apple has the best of all three where others only offer 1 or 2 in the list. I expect to pay for having this trinity of selling features, ergo price is less of an issue.

The key thing is I feel that I get what I pay for, whereas the average PC enthusiast probably feels they have to pour over details of purchase to ensure they're getting the best price for the best gear.

Inherently the PC user is trying to spend as little as possible and therefore gets what they pay for.

This is the flaw of Microsoft's price-war smear campaign: They are devaluing the primary delivery device of their flagship product.

The are saying to the world, "our product comes on cheap hardware, we are the low cost provider". That, as a position, will eventually become completely indefensible in the marketplace. The thing is they've created a fantastic barrier to entry. They've set themselves up to bleed slowly to death; and they're fine with it.

There is no denying Microsoft's success, but I am not prepared to subscribe to it at my own expense.