Until recently, I had been using OmniFocus.  My path to OmniFocus (via Things and other apps) has been a long and storied one.  But I still wasn’t entirely sold on it.  OmniFocus has some quirks, and it’s not the easiest application to use.  Plus, OmniFocus just isn’t pretty (yes, I know that shouldn’t matter, but it does!).

And then I stumbled upon a new entry into the field, Firetask.  What makes Firetask somewhat unique is that it started on iOS and migrated to Mac OS X after the success of its iPhone and iPad apps.  The design of the desktop client was clearly inspired by the iPad app, both usable and attractive.

Firetask has a few interesting differences from other GTD apps.  First, Firetask is (proudly, I might add), a project-oriented task manager.  Every task belongs to a project (by default, tasks go into the Miscellaneous project).  Unlike OmniFocus and Things, Firetask doesn’t distinguish between types of projects (ie. completable project vs.  single action / area of responsibility).  Second, Firetask has predefined categories.  These are similar to the contexts in OmniFocus, but they include a handy visual icon indicator.  The colorful indicator allows for easy identification of different types of tasks when scanning through a list.  And like OmniFocus, Firetask allows users to define their own categories (although you’re limited to the set of 31 built-in icons).

Firetask has much to like:

• Attractive interface is quite user friendly, letting you get in and start working without a steep learning curve
• Category indicators allow me to quickly identify different types of tasks

But Firetask isn’t perfect:

• No apparent way to add long descriptions, links to email messages, or attachments to task description
• Needs to make better use of drag-and-drop (for example, the info palette seems to be the only way to change a task from Today to Someday)
• Using the calendar for entering a due date oddly requires users to click on a different task first
• Syncing is limited to wi-fi (no MobileMe syncing yet)

Firetask is definitely a contender.  But as you can see, the list of negatives is longer than the list of positives.  Of course, the same is true of OmniFocus and Things (which is what has made choosing a final direction so difficult!).

We previously had been using iCal server on Mac OS X server.  But this setup limits us to syncing our shared events to our iPhones by plugging it in.  Two years ago, that wouldn’t have been a problem because my iPhone couldn’t last an entire day.  But batteries and cell efficiency are far better now.  My iPhone 3GS lasts a couple days without being plugged in.  And working off a two day old calendar is a big no-no.

So we’ve tried setting up a few shared calendars using the new MobileMe sharing, and it works pretty well.  I ran into one situation where I updated the text of an event and it didn’t sync to the “shared” computer.  But other than that one hiccup, the sharing has worked quite well.

We still have big plans for Mac OS X server, but right now it seems that the plug is being pulled on iCal server.

The release of FileMaker Go certainly muddies the decision between a standard “desktop” database and a website-driven database.  I am still undecided on the technology that will serve as the foundation for our next-generation practice management tool.  FileMaker Go certainly ups the ante on the desktop side of things.

Whatever you think you know about the changes coming this week to your iPhone, I am sure you will find something new in this article.

As usual, John Gruber over at Daring Fireball says it much better than I could have ever said it myself in his well-researched and thoughtful writeup on the matter.

I have been very disappointed in Gizmodo’s behavior through this whole process. Publicly naming the engineer who lost the device was completely classless. As John Gruber puts it:

The people whose identities I’d like to know are those who obtained and then sold the phone, not the guy from Apple who lost it. There is no interest served by outing him other than taking sociopathic glee in making a public spectacle of someone who made a very serious but honest mistake.

For Gizmodo it’s all about the spectacle. It’s one thing to dedicate yourself to finding out the latest scoop on Apple products. That’s what news organizations do. But it’s quite another to turn it into a game. The writes at Gizmodo seems pretty proud of themselves right now. They even claimed success against Apple in this made-up game of theirs:

A controlled leak? The lost iPhone planted by Apple? You have no idea how Apple PR works—and how, like it or not, Gizmodo finally beat them at their own game.

It seems odd for a company that reports on Apple so much to have such an antagonistic attitude towards Apple. I guess this is what Think Secret has been replaced by – a website that is more interested in making noise than it is in the technology itself.

The experience has been quite a surprise for me. I expected some poor reviews and an unenthusiastic segment. But I never would have predicted the reception that the iPad received.

One group seems enthralled with the iPad. Count me in that corner (unashamed Apple fanboy here). But others think its an absolute dud, destined to live out its life in obscurity like the Apple TV.

The most common objections seem to be:

• It’s just a bigger iPod Touch!
• Netbooks are the same price, the same size, and so much better.
• There’s no camera (I won’t touch on this one, but I do find it interesting that so many people want to do video chats with a camera that sees up your nose and show mostly the ceiling).

The one comment that seems to appear more often than others is, “why would I need an iPad if I have an iPhone and a MacBook?” Of course, you can replace “iPhone” with any top end smartphone and “MacBook” with netbook.

But couldn’t we just as easily ask, why do I need a MacBook if I have an iPhone and an iPad?

Let’s set aside two types of users for the moment. First are the large firm business users. The road warrior who needs to use Exchange and Microsoft Word while flying from one city to another (because work never stops and IT said those are the applications we have to use). The iPad won’t replace the road warrior’s laptop. It almost certainly could — someday. But not today. Windows is too entrenched in the corporate culture for most businesses.

Second are the pro design users. The woman you see editing a video in Final Cut Pro at the local Caribou Coffee. Or the man you see designing a brochure in Adobe InDesign at Panera Bread. They won’t be selling their MacBook Pros anytime soon.

Now that we have those two groups out of the way, what about everyone else? Me, for example. I am occasionally in the second group, but most of that work is done in the office.

A MacBook, iPad, and iPhone all offer the same set of fundamental tools. Email. Web browsing. Chat and social media. Address book. Calendars and task management. Games. Movies.

The iPhone really runs into a wall in two places: (1) entering and manipulating data; and (2) reviewing large amounts of data. Add those two capabilities, and a device would meet the needs of most people.

I haven’t used an iPad yet, so this prediction is based entirely on Apple’s advertising and a few reviews from people who used one at the launch event. But it appears that the iPad takes a big step in the direction of satisfying those two capabilities.

When I first read about the iPad and watched the videos, I said to myself, “that looks great – wouldn’t be be amazing if it had iWork?” I look forward to seeing how well iWork really performs on an iPad. I do a lot of work in page layout mode. Will the iPad support that? Only time will tell. But the ability to do lightweight document drafting on the iPad will really cut down on the need for a laptop on many day trips or short overnight trips.

The iPad also has a screen large enough to comfortably review much more data than on the iPhone. Large webpages can be read on the iPhone by holding it 6 inches from my face. But almost every other app uses larger fonts and larger controls, limiting the amount that can be displayed.

But there’s an even more compelling thing about the iPad. It’s simplicity! Imagine device where you can do everything you’re used to doing on your computer…without any of the hassle of owning a computer.

Many people see this as a drawback. But it’s seen by some as a tremendous advantage.

The iPad is great for people who just want to do cool, useful things on a mobile device and don’t care about the underlying technology. Many of the criticisms seem based on the notion that the desktop metaphor we have been using the past 20 years is always superior. But maybe it’s time for something else.

And maybe – just maybe – that something else is the iPad.

I have used the iPhone’s built-in Voice Memos application quite a bit. I’ll record some thoughts or dictate part of a document and transcribe it by hand later.

Of course, hand transcription is a fairly slow process. So I was quite delighted to hear about Dragon Dictation for the iPhone. My wife uses Mac Speech Dictate and really likes it (or should I say used? we lost the headset during an office reorganization). I figured that applying the same technology to the iPhone would be a sure winner.

But having used it, I am a little underwhelmed. Perhaps the microphone just isn’t up to the task. Or maybe it’s that – unlike Mac Speech Dictate – there doesn’t seem to be any learning going on. But, whatever the reason, the errors are plentiful. And strange enough that if you look at an email transcript a few hours later, you might not be able to figure it out.

And then there’s the time limit. You can only record for about 20-30 seconds in one go. That’s enough time for a few sentences, but not something as long as a letter.

Right now I place Dragon Dictation in the “novelty” category. I’d gladly pay for a good transcription app for the iPhone. But what I don’t want to do is pay per word. Hopefully someone will come out with a reliable dictation iPhone app that I can use for a one-time fee. If you know of such an app, I’d love to hear your recommendations.

Erick Schonfeld at TechCrunch seems to believe that this success will be short-lived because there are no killer apps on the iPhone:

While the initial impulse is to download as many apps as possible to try them out, there is a limit to how many apps you can juggle on your iPhone. It is not much different than a PC. You have tons of apps, but how many do you actually use on a regular basis? For most people, that number is probably no more than ten apps, and on a daily basis, maybe 3 or 4 tops.

I think we’re past the point where a single application will define the market and be the reason everyone buys into a platform. On the other hand, I don’t think an application has to be used every day to make a platform compelling. It certainly helps, though. For instance, I use OmniFocus on a pretty regular basis. But it’s applications like Shazam that have given me reasons to use a phone that I never thought I would have. Is that a killer app for the iPhone? Probably not, but it’s the total package that I am buying. And right now the iPhone has a total package that no other phone can compare to.

One month later, here is what is on my iPhone:

• OmniFocus
• WeatherBug
• NetNewsWire
• 1Password
• Ebay
• Shazam
• HoldEm
• Trism
• Morocco
• Labyrinth LE
• Koi Pond
• More Cowbell
• Remote

Whats on your iPhone?