Tweetbot for iPad Hits The App Store

[rwilliams]

Why should the people that have one device subsidize the price for people that have both an iPhone and an iPad?

Fair enough. But they have to charge something, because every image, sound, etc. in their apps is custom-made, so they're going to have to get that money back from sales.

 

[BaldiMac]

Fair enough. But they have to charge something, because every image, sound, etc. in their apps is custom-made, so they're going to have to get that money back from sales.

Definitely. I agree with their choice. I disagree with your suggestion to release a Universal version.

 

[sterumbelow]

A-Mazing!

Now all we need is a Tweetbot for Mac App.

 

[yetanotherdave]

A-Mazing!

Now all we need is a Tweetbot for Mac App.

They've said it's being worked on

 

[sterumbelow]

They've said it's being worked on

Whoop. Perfect news.

 

[newyorksole]

They've said it's being worked on

are you serious?! YESSSSSS

 

[yetanotherdave]

Whoop. Perfect news.

are you serious?! YESSSSSS

that's what he said.
http://twitter.com/tapbot_paul/status/167347789968326656
admittedly, the link is a rick roll, but judging by his general tone, he's serious about the app, but kidding about releasing any sneak peak vids.

 

[thecharrr]

Personally, I think it lacks a few features to be really be a power user client:

• No multireply feature, nothing like spending lots of time to chain up @s to a question.
• Lack of userstream for loading tweets is quite disappointing considering the device's "usual" usage in wifi areas.
• More triple tap options: I'd like to open conversation view with triple tap, or have it be an option on the single tap's menu.

 

[joshuaginter]

I definitely find the likeness of a cup of coffee to an iPad app amusing. I see the logic behind Tapbots' pricing of Tweetbot for iPad. We have to remember that they are a business and trying to take care of themselves and their families like everyone else.

I think one of the best features about Tweetdeck on Mac and the previous iPad version was the ability to use a saved search as an entire column. I like to follow specific companies closely on Twitter and the ability to have all of the company's tweets in one long column is really nice.

Tweetbot does not have a feature like this and I would love to see one. I understand you can click on the search icon and then click on one of your saved searches. It's not that hard. But with all of the extra space on the left hand side in both portrait and landscape, it seems to me that they have plenty of room to add navigation options. I personally hope putting saved searches on that navigation bar is one of their future updates.

iPad'ers: Rejoice. We have a proper Twitter client.

 

[bronksy]

can't see it in notification center

I can't see the settings in Notifications. Am I missing something?

 

[nburwell]

While the iPhone app is absolutely perfect, I do agree that they should have made this universal. Needless to say, as soon as I got home from work last night, I deleted my Twitter for iPad app and shelled out the $3 for Tweetbot.

 

[BaldiMac]

While the iPhone app is absolutely perfect, I do agree that they should have made this universal. Needless to say, as soon as I got home from work last night, I deleted my Twitter for iPad app and shelled out the $3 for Tweetbot.

Why should they have made it universal?

 

[nutmac]

I can't see the settings in Notifications. Am I missing something?

Settings | Account Settings | select your username | Notifications

 

[nburwell]

Why should they have made it universal?

Why not?

Obviously I didn't mind shelling out another $3 for the iPad app since it's a well polished app that I use every single day. But it would have been nice to release a universal app for those of us who already own the app on our iPhone.

 

[BaldiMac]

Why not?

Obviously I didn't mind shelling out another $3 for the iPad app since it's a well polished app that I use every single day. But it would have been nice to release a universal app for those of us who already own the app on our iPhone.

I can see that it would be nice for you to get the iPad version for free. But why should Tapbots do that? Have you really not gotten your $2.99 worth from the iPhone app?

As far as why not, the obvious answer is that Tapbots makes more money by not giving it away for free. From a consumer perspective, it means less space taken up on our devices, more development resources, and more targeted updates. (Why download an update that only applies to the iPad version if I don't have an iPad?) And then there are the people that are paying less than they would for a universal version, because they only have an iPhone or an iPad.

 

[AppleMacFinder]

How the logo was created...

+

=

 

[Richy23]

Anyone see an option to view local trending topics? Such as only USA or only UK etc? ...only seem to be able to see the Overall ones..thanks!

 

[BergerFan]

Tweetbot is an aesthetic marvel, that hides it's awesome functionality superbly.
It doesn't overwhelm you with a plethora of options, but they're all there, under the hood.
Simple, but awesome features such as the swiping of a tweet left and right, to show replies and conversations, respectively, is super intuitive.
Hash tag muting is another great feature.
I have no issue paying for truly great software, and Tweetbot is exactly that.
You can't fully appreciate how good it is just by watching a video.

I call it the Goldilocks of Titter apps.

 

[yetanotherdave]

Anyone see an option to view local trending topics? Such as only USA or only UK etc? ...only seem to be able to see the Overall ones..thanks!

Accounts and settings -> settings -> username -> trends -> choose your country

 

[kristoffer4]

I hope they make a mac App store version next!

 

[ggbrown]

This company makes fantastic, quality apps. I own them all.

$2.99 for an iPad version? Take my money!!!

Thank you Tapbots!

G

 

[bronksy]

Settings | Account Settings | select your username | Notifications

Sorry- I meant that I can't see tweetbot in my notification Center. I can't see it in the list of apps that would then let me chose how notifications are displayed and change them accordingly.

 

[d3vi1]

1024x768

960x640

WAT

iPhone 960x640
iPad 1024x768

You can prove anything with facts.
ok, fine, looks lower res than iPhone.

Yetanotherdave, you were right to begin with.

Resolution:
(SNIP)
4. The act of discerning detail.
5. (computing) The degree of fineness with which an image can be recorded or produced, often expressed as the number of pixels per unit of length (typically an inch).
6. (computing) The number of pixels in an image being stored or displayed.

Resolution as in pixel density (like original statement by yetanotherdave):

• The statement "The Apple iPhone has a better resolution (326dpi) than the iPad (132dpi)" is absolutely correct.
• The statement "The Apple iPhone has a higher resolution (326dpi) than the iPad (132dpi)" is also correct.

Resolution as in number of pixels (like the "correcting" statements by chrmjenkins and BaldiMac):

• The statement "The Apple iPad has a higher resolution (786432 pixels) than the iPhone (614400 pixels)" is correct.
• However, the statement "The Apple iPad has a better resolution (786432 pixels) than the iPhone (614400 pixels)" is incorrect since bigger isn't always better. An 1920x1200 24" display isn't necessarily better than a 1920x1080 24" display. A 21" 1600x1200 display isn't necessarily better than a 21" 1680x1050 one and so forth.

At least they didn't call it "Tweetbot HD", something that always bugs me as iPad apps are lower resolution than iPhone.

Furthermore, if chrmjenkins and BaldiMac really analysed the semantics of yetanotherdave's statement they would realise that he is right and they are wrong. He referred specifically to the HD suffix everyone adds to their apps. HD as in High Definition refers to a higher pixel density at the same given physical dimensions. A 1080p cinema is not HD (since the pixels would appear enormous), however a 480p movie on an iPhone is perfect HD. A correct usage of the HD suffix would be to add it once an iPhone application is Retina Display compatible.

 

[BaldiMac]

Yetanotherdave, you were right to begin with.



Resolution as in pixel density (like original statement by yetanotherdave):

• The statement "The Apple iPhone has a better resolution (326dpi) than the iPad (132dpi)" is absolutely correct.
• The statement "The Apple iPhone has a higher resolution (326dpi) than the iPad (132dpi)" is also correct.

Resolution as in number of pixels (like the "correcting" statements by chrmjenkins and BaldiMac):

• The statement "The Apple iPad has a higher resolution (786432 pixels) than the iPhone (614400 pixels)" is correct.
• However, the statement "The Apple iPad has a better resolution (786432 pixels) than the iPhone (614400 pixels)" is incorrect since bigger isn't always better. An 1920x1200 24" display isn't necessarily better than a 1920x1080 24" display. A 21" 1600x1200 display isn't necessarily better than a 21" 1680x1050 one and so forth.

Furthermore, if chrmjenkins and BaldiMac really analysed the semantics of yetanotherdave's statement they would realise that he is right and they are wrong. He referred specifically to the HD suffix everyone adds to their apps. HD as in High Definition refers to a higher pixel density at the same given physical dimensions. A 1080p cinema is not HD (since the pixels would appear enormous), however a 480p movie on an iPhone is perfect HD. A correct usage of the HD suffix would be to add it once an iPhone application is Retina Display compatible.

You can confuse any topic if you just keep switching around definitions. I stand by what I said. The most common uses of the word "resolution" and the term "HD" in the context of screen tech is the total number of pixels, not the pixel density.

Yetanotherdave said "iPad apps are lower resolution than iPhone [apps]." Software doesn't have a pixel density. I have no idea where you got your definition for HD that you described.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Furthermore, if chrmjenkins and BaldiMac really analysed the semantics of yetanotherdave's statement they would realise that he is right and they are wrong. He referred specifically to the HD suffix everyone adds to their apps. HD as in High Definition refers to a higher pixel density at the same given physical dimensions. A 1080p cinema is not HD (since the pixels would appear enormous), however a 480p movie on an iPhone is perfect HD. A correct usage of the HD suffix would be to add it once an iPhone application is Retina Display compatible.

BaldiMac addressed the first part of what you said. For this part, yetanotherdave actually acknowledged our correction rather than challenged it and stated he was mistaken. You saying he is correct is therefore mistenterpreting his original intention.

Second, HD is recognized officially as resolutions exceeding 720P. There are zero stipulations on pixel density.

Developers referring to iPad apps as HD is a shortcut to abbreviating their specific intent for the iPad. It does not conform to the official interpretation of the term.