Which DC Costume Changes Work?
DC will relaunch 52 titles to #1 in September. Many of those titles will be accompanied by costume changes. Which costume changes do I like? Verdicts below:
Action Comics:
Verdict: Love it!
(Though I doubt that this is an official costume.)
Superman:
Verdict: Hate it.
Superboy:
Verdict: I’m intrigued.
Supergirl:
Verdict: Love it.
Batman: (Very little change.)
Verdict: Like it.
Batgirl:
Verdict: Love it!
(More than the costume, I love the fact that Barbara Gordon is returning to the Batgirl mantle.)
Nightwing:
Verdict: Like it.
Catwoman: (No change.)
Verdict: Love it!
Birds of Prey:
Poison Ivy: Do not like it.
Black Canary: Hate it!
Wonder Woman:
Verdict: Love it.
Suicide Squad:
Harley Quinn: Love it!
Teen Titans:
Red Robin: Like it.
Wonder Girl: Like it.
Superboy: Do not like it.
Blue Beetle:
Verdict: Like it.
Justice League Dark:
Zatanna: Like it. (But it doesn’t beat the old one.)
Bon Jovi: Living in the Past
Image via Wikipedia
Jon Bon Jovi thinks that Steve Jobs (and Apple) is “killing the music business.”
Dave Wiskus of BetterElevation responded best: “You know who never complains about the shift to digital music? People who buy and listen to music.”
The irony in Bon Jovi’s statement is that most people in the technology industry believe the exact opposite; that Steve Jobs saved music.
What Bon Jovi really means to say is that Steve Jobs is killing the music business… as it was back in the early 90s. This includes the experience of thumbing through CDs at the store, owning albums, and getting lost in all the songs.
The Internet is what really started killing the music business in the late 90s, as people found ways to acquire the music they wanted through downloadable means. Apple simply found a way for consumers to do it with our karma intact.
In the wake, though, things have changed. The cost of manufacturing and distributing music has gone down. Singles are more popular than albums. Discovery is done through radio, internet media, social networking and charts before buying. “Shuffle” is the new “skip.”
Not all of these are good changes, but they aren’t bad either. Just lateral moves to a different experience for a different world. Musicians and producers will have to respond (and have responded) by putting more emphasis on the hit single. Even in the days of LPs and CDs, music listeners wanted a lean product with less fat: more tracks that they liked and less of those they skipped. iTunes enabled the cutting of the fat.
The Difference between Apple and Google
If you’d like to know the difference between Apple and Google, just take a look at the UI for Google’s Google TV Remote iPhone App and compare it to Apple’s remote app for the Apple TV.
It’s like Google’s UI designers weren’t even trying on this one.
Apple designs first and then engineers the product. Google seems to do it the other way around.
Examples to the contrary? Google Chrome and Apple iTunes.
Apple and Free Content Apps
Image via Wikipedia
Some people have been pretty vocal of their displeasure on Apple’s recent change in their subscription-based app policies.
My position is this:
1. Apple shoulders the cost of distributing free apps. If developers make their app free, Apple waives the distribution fee.
2. Many content companies exploit this. They makes their apps free in the App Store, and demand users pay a subscription fee to use the app, thus circumventing any compensation to Apple as the app’s distributor.
3. That’s not fair to Apple.
4. Apple is just trying to gain control of this exploit. If you have a subscription plan, provide an in-app subscription option.
5. Subscribers of the apps don’t have to use this option, but it is the easiest, making it a better experience.
5. Content providers argue that the change in policy is too sudden and cost too much (Apple’s standard 30%) because that sometimes leaves them zero (or negative) mark-up after compensating their content producers.
6. Apple has given the developers of existing apps time to adjust for the change. If it effects your bottom line, adjust your compensation structure with content producers. You may not have to increase prices.
7. Perhaps the subscription cut is a bit high. Asking for a cut of a recurring fee for the single distribution of an app seems unfair to developers. Maybe a one-time fee of some sort is better.
Tablets and Design
UI/UX powerhouse, Smashing Magazine, asks the question, “Are Touchscreen Tablets Effective Design Tools?” in about 3000 words.
Short answer: No.
And I would agree.
Favorite 2011 Superbowl Commercials
Image via Wikipedia
This year wasn’t the best for Superbowl commercials. A lot of them was just slapstick or chauvinistic.
Here’s my favorites:
15. CareerBuilder – Parking Lot
14. Doritos – House Sitting
13. Bridgestone – Carma
12. Audi – Release the Hounds
11. VW – The Force
10. Kia – One Epic Ride
9. Budweiser – Wild West
8. VW – Black Beetle
7. Bridgestone – Reply All
6. CarMax – Kid in a Candy Store
5. Coca-cola – Siege
4. Chrysler – Imported From Detriot
3. Chevy – Discovery
2. NFL – American Family
1. Motorola – Empower the People
Not that I’d ever buy a Motorola Xoom. ($799 for that? Really?) But the commercial was a nod to Apple’s 1984 ad–although unfairly critical of Apple’s user base–and made people think.
Fox Searchlight and iTunes Distributed Screeners
Image via Wikipedia
Studios and their marketing departments have been trying to find a way to fight piracy in regards to their screeners. These are the copies of their movies that they send to voting members for award shows, like the Oscars. Currently, they send out DVDs, but too often people end up pirating them and copies end up in torrent sites.
Fox has come up with an interesting solution. This year, they sent out iTunes codes to download the movies.
Ingenious! This form of digital distribution includes digital rights management that disallows copying.
Normally, I frown upon the use of DRM. If a person buys a copy of a movie (or song), they should be able to make a copy for backup. But voting members don’t buy screeners. They’re gifted on the basis that it will help them make a proper voting decision. Members don’t ever have the right to make a copy in this case.
I wonder how long before many other studios use iTunes (or another service like it, such as Netflix Streaming) to distribute screeners for the SAGs, DGAs, Eddies, Golden Globes and Oscars.
Related Articles
- In awards season, movie leakers are ‘Enemy Within’ (salon.com)
- Fox Searchlight Releases SAG Screeners on iTunes (slashfilm.com)
An iOS 4.3 Gesture Wishlist
Reports have surfaced that the developer release of iOS 4.3 for iPad includes new gestures, including app switching (multitasking) and “Pinch to go to home”. But how those gestures work exactly is still a bit fuzzy. How many fingers? In what direction?
What would be the best way Apple implements these gestures? Which combination of finger movement would be natural and understandable?
How ’bout this:
- Three finger swipes: highlighting
- Four finger swipe up: home screen
- Four finger swipe down: multitasking (tray)
- Four finger swipe right: next open app
- Four finger swipe left: previous open app
This would match the way multitouch works on the Mac: three finger dragging, four finger (up) to the desktop, four finger (down) for exposé, and four finger (right or left) for the app switcher.
This poses a problem though. The multitasking “tray” comes up from the bottom, with the rest of the screen moving up. So, a four finger swipe up might be a better, natural choice for that function. Maybe it would be better this way:
- Three finger swipes: highlighting
- Three, four or five finger pinch: home screen
- Four finger swipe up: multitasking (tray)
- Four finger swipe right: next open app
- Four finger swipe left: previous open app
But would that prompt Apple to change Mac OS X’s multitouch gestures to match?
On that note, Apple: How about a better lock screen (one that shows Mail unread counts and the weather), and a better multitasking interface (that looks and feels like Exposé or WebOS’). Maybe Apple will save that for iOS 5.
Related Articles
- Apple releases iOS 4.3 beta for developers (macworld.com)
No iPad Home Button = Bad UX
Image via Wikipedia
There are unconfirmed reports that Apple might remove the home button from its iOS devices (the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch) and that it is to be replaced by a pinching gesture–probably a three, four or five finger pinch.
I find these rumors wacky and wouldn’t give much substance to them. Why? Because it would be bad UX (user experience) design to remove the home button.
Without a physical button, there would be no obvious or instinctual method of getting back to the home screen. Gestures that require more than two fingers are learned, having no a natural, real-world metaphor.
Whereas removing the Home button would render only one small benefit: making the iPad’s bottom bevel smaller. For iPod touches and iPhones, that benefit would turn into a drawback, since the hand position is aided by a sizable bottom bezel.
It would be uncharacteristic of Apple to implement such a poor UX choice. (Unless you’re talking about mice.)
Related Articles
The “Gritty” Reboot
Image by Daniel Semper via Flickr
Some people refer to Sony’s attempt to relaunch the Spider-man movie franchise as the “Spider-man gritty reboot.”
Usually, I dismiss it when people put the words “gritty” and “reboot” in the same sentence. I’ve always believed that this was a knee-jerk reaction. An assumption. When people think “reboot” they automatically think “gritty”.
Why? Because the first reboot was Batman Begins, which was widely regarded as “grittier” than the Batman movies that came before it. This characteristic is thought to be why it succeeded. (I’m sure much of the industry–including myself–would disagree.)
Side note: Reboots are different from remakes. A reboot requires a relaunch of a set of movies with different plot lines. A remake is usually an updated version of the same plot line. The Karate Kid is a reboot. True Grit is a remake.
But a reboot doesn’t have to be gritty. Since there hasn’t a release of images from the movie’s production prior to yesterday, one couldn’t call it gritty without inside information. The Star Trek reboot wasn’t gritty. The Spider-man in comic books (usually) isn’t gritty. Why should this Spider-man reboot be?
Yesterday’s first look at Andrew Garfield and the movie’s new Spider-man costume offers a first glimpse into the style of the film. And surprise: Yes, it is a gritty reboot.
Well, it looks like that’s the case anyway.
Related Articles
- First Look At Andrew Garfield In The New Spider-Man Costume (cinemablend.com)
- Five Key Changes In Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man Costume (splashpage.mtv.com)
