MacUpdate cross-lists iPhone and iPad apps from our mobile section to the Mac OS X section from time-to-time, since the majority of Mac OS X users also own an iOS device. We are not trying to confuse anyone, and the listing clearly shows OS and device requirements for the application.

I was also disappointed, but not confused -- for very long. I would suggest including iPhone/iPad/iTouch categories in the filtering routine. That way people could easily customize what they want/need to see, and thus more easily cut through the clutter.

"... since the majority of Mac OS X users also own an iOS device" - absolute nonsense!!!

"absolute nonsense" -- Indeed. We wish. But for many of us it has to do with things like AT&T, poor service, exclusive contracts, not wanting to put out extra $$ every month for things we don't really need/use, etc.

There's so many cool things about the iPhone, and smart phones in general. To me, the ability to access the web via cell tower is not that high on the list. Access to wi-fi/home network is plenty.

I wish all these "smart" phones didn't require you to get this extra data plan just to use the phone like you always have.

I know -- it's a "profit deal", as Navin Johnson once said.

@GARY W.

Sounds like what you want is an iPod touch. :)
Will be interesting to se what the upcoming (most probably) version has to offer.

No ...... I need a phone. Just not the extra charge for a data plan when I don't need to be sending/receiving data via cell tower. Just voice.

But yes, my son just got an iPod touch and it's pretty cool. But no camera and no phone. Seems they'd sell a lot more iPhones, and carriers would get a lot more customers and they'd be a lot happier -- if there was an option NOT to have to pay for data use. Every month. Month after month.

We've just got it so tough! ; ~ )

"... since the majority of Mac OS X users also own an iOS device" - absolute nonsense!!!

Maybe this counts for America but America is not the world you know. The majority of Mac OS X users don't have 'Touch Devices for the so called iOS'.

A lot of the Mac OS X users do have an iPod, with a Click wheel you know. And they have absolutely nothing to do with iOS 4 programs.

Put this program where it belongs. In the iPhone section.

Just to be clear about semantics: saying that something is confusing isn't to say that one was confused by it. I wasn't "confused" by the presence of iBooks in the Mac software listing as such, but I do maintain that mixing things up in this way is indeed confusing. Very much so, in fact.

That's particularly true if, as in this case, the app is highlighted as being 'important software', in a colour that stands out from other items in the listing.

Yes, I acknowledge that system requirements are stated, so one can see that it's not a Mac app. HOWEVER, this is NOT true within the main listing, where the thing grabs your attention in the first place. You have to go to the product page and then read the small print in order to see that it's not a Mac application after all.

My initial reaction when I saw iBooks listed was to think, "Wow! Hey, Apple's released a version of iBooks for the Mac! Cool!" So I came to this page in great excitement, only to be disappointed (if not surprised). So if you want a recipe for upsetting and disappointing Mac users the world over, you've found it! ;-)

Besides, it's actually not inconceivable that Apple *MAY* at some point release a Mac version of iBooks. (I rather doubt it, but you never know.) If that happens, there'll be further confusion because the product's already been listed in the wrong category.

The questions that should be considered when listing software for one platform in another platform's listing are:

1. Is this a helpful thing to do?
2. Is this information that the target audience wants to see?
3. What positive benefits are being achieved by this action?

The answers, to my mind, would be:

1. No. Software for largely unrelated platforms, and different audiences, is being mixed together in a single place, which is inherently unhelpful. Worse, it's impossible to distinguish between the different types of item without going to the individual product pages and looking for some small-print. That's as unhelpful as it could be, because looking at the list of recent software updates should be all about seeing things at a glance, not having to hunt for needles in haystacks.

2. No, it is not. People come to Mac software listings to look at listings of Mac software. You can't make assumptions about what other devices they might possibly own. You also should not assume that including such cross-posted items is useful information for them even if they do own such a device, as it's not what they came to your site to see. It seems fairly reasonable to expect that a Mac software listing will include only Mac software. By your argument, you should be listing Windows software too, on the grounds that most Mac users these days have installed some means of running Windows software on their Mac (be it Boot Camp, Parallels or whatever). That may well be true, but it doesn't make it right to list Windows software here. So it isn't right to list iOS software here either.

3. Good question, though I ask it myself. I can't come up with a good answer, however. I really can't see any useful benefits of doing this. (And I speak as an iPad owner who's very interested in using iBooks on that device.) If I want to know what iOS apps have been updated recently, that information is only one click away on MacUpdate, under the iPhone listing. Why on earth should I want to see some of that information mixed up in Mac listings when I'm asking to see information about Mac software?

Bottom line: please don't mix things up in this way. It's hugely unhelpful; there are lots of arguments against it and, apparently, very few in favour of it. MacUpdate offers a really useful and high-quality service, but this kind of cross-prosting actually detracts from its usefulness by reducing the focus of the Mac service and making its results unreliable. I.e. you can no longer rely on all entries in Mac listings referring to Mac software, which is the whole point of the service.

It appears that action has been taken in response to my comments, and iBooks is no longer cross-posted in the Mac software listing.

Thanks very much for listening and acting.

A lot of great points were made, so thanks to everyone for the input.

Come on TC, you can do better than that. Give us some clue as to what's going on besides saying "a lot of good points were made". That's just so much blow-off speak. No answers to a myriad of questions and concerns raised. Were you wrong? Is MU changing its policy? What exactly are you thinking? Is it that much a big secret?