Skip to main content

Twitbook will never be the same

My Flipboard home page. Images are from posts
I try really hard not to get too enthusiastic about the iPad too often, or people will get bored - but I can't resist pointing out the occasional app that really delivers for me.

A Twitter page - each story is a tweet, but incorporates
data from links (if there are any)
One I'm rather pleased with is Flipboard. It's a beautifully laid out app that can tap into your Facebook and Twitter accounts, your RSS reader and also various interesting feeds from Wired to Popular Science magazine. Each appears as a top level box. Tap the box and it opens into the relevent stream of information - but rather than just provide a simple list of contents, it picks up any photos or web pages linked to and incorporates them into a newspaper-like format. The result is very impressive. I like using Tweetdeck for reading Twitter, but Flipboard takes Twitter to a new level because you don't have to click through to find out what a link refers to or to see a photo.

It's quite simple in approach and needs a few additions (for instance handling Twitter groups). It also isn't great at some of the extra bits of Facebook like comments and liking (in principle it can handle these, but it doesn't seem to work properly). Even so, it's very elegant, and particularly with Twitter it really opens up the interface.

Oh, and it's free.
Labels:

Comments

  1. byodbuzz0413 November 2018 at 09:14

    Flipboard only launched its Android app recently. The app allows users to browse through their Facebook, Twitter and Google+ streams, as well as Google Reader feeds in a beautiful flipping manner. It also consolidates and curates a stream of important stories for those who are too busy to go through everything. As a blogger, using this app and browsing through interesting news content daily will give you fresh ideas on what to write about in your next blog post.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more