The deliciously named Ellis Hamburger for The Verge:
I’d consistently heard great things about Fantastical for Mac, but I wouldn’t buy it. I wasn’t ready to pay upwards of fifteen dollars for a nice-looking menu bar calendar, though it did include the "List View" I’d come to love on my iPhone. But then a colleague showed me Fantastical’s event creation bar, a white box that turns your words into calendar events. I was sold, and for months I like many others longed for it on iPhone.
"I was too cheap to buy an app that cost about as much as a movie ticket, but once I saw the headline feature which is clearly explained in the App Store description and screenshots, I knew I had to have it."
And these are the people whose opinions we're supposed to trust when it comes to new technology?
Also, that line about not spending upwards of fifteen dollars on an app reminded me of something Ben Popper wrote regarding the Apple TV:
Clearly, Apple knows how to make a slick, seamless store that anyone can learn to navigate easily, and as someone who would rather be working a little harder and getting the goods for free, I kind of hate them for that.
The Verge: We don't mind dropping our paychecks on $500 tablets and $300 smartphones, but we draw the line at two dollar TV shows and fifteen dollar apps.
Finally - and this could just be nitpicking, or I could be commenting on a disheartening and angering symptom of an already toxic industry built around the belief that integrity comes second to ad views - but Tom Warren posted the following at 6:38 am this morning:
Two paragraphs announcing the app's release, as well as a description of some of its features and a teaser of the "full hands-on with the app" coming shortly.
An hour and a half later, Hamburger's article went live with a full "hands-on" review and feature rundown. Was Warren's piece even necessary? Why couldn't The Verge wait the hour and a half and just post one complete, cohesive article about a two dollar iPhone app they begrudgingly paid for this morning?