Why we didn't hear about a new iPhone at the iPhone OS 4.0 event

Filed under: iPhoneToday's iPhone OS 4.0 event was exclusively focused on new software features of the iPhone platform. Many people were expecting to hear about new hardware, too, and those people were undoubtedly disappointed when no hardware announcement was made. However, as one of our own readers pointed out to us, no one really should have been surprised that there was no hardware announcement today -- you only need to look at the past three years of Apple's releases to see the pattern. Original iPhone released: June 29, 2007 Original iPod touch: September 13, 2007 iPhone OS 2.0 announced and demoed: March 6, 2008 iPhone 3G and OS 2.0 release date announced: June 6, 2008 iPod touch update: September 9, 2008 iPhone OS 3.0 announced and demoed: March 17, 2009 iPhone 3GS and OS 3.0 release date announced: June 9, 2009 iPod touch update: September 9, 2009 See the pattern? Here's what we can predict from it: iPhone OS 4.0 announced and demoed: April 8, 2010 iPhone update, OS 4.0 release date announced: June 2010 iPod touch update: September 2010 Apple's Mac updates were once artificially tied to events like Macworld or WWDC so they had a media platform to use for their major announcements. This was part of Apple's stated reason for backing out of trade shows -- so they could release Mac updates on their own schedule, not the media's. That said, Macs are still largely dependent on other manufacturers' hardware cycles (mainly Intel's) for updates. This means that Mac updates are probably always going to be relatively sporadic and unpredictable. iPhone and iPod updates, on the other hand, are far easier to predict -- so far, they've been coming out with almost clockwork precision. Particularly since Apple is now developing their own mobile CPUs, the company is beholden to no one else's release schedule. With the pattern that's emerged over the past three years, it's pretty clear that Apple is committed to a cyclical, 12-month schedule for its portable lines: OS betas in spring, iPhone and OS updates in early summer, iPod updates in late summer. it's not clear yet how the iPad will fit into all this, and it won't be until the device goes through at least one revision. In the meantime, we can all stop being surprised when Apple doesn't make iPhone or iPod touch hardware announcements outside of the cycle outlined above. Thanks to TUAW reader Nick.TUAWWhy we didn't hear about a new iPhone at the iPhone OS 4.0 event originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Read�|�Permalink�|�Email this�|�Comments iPhone - Unofficial Apple Weblog - Apple - IpodTouch - iPhone 3G

Related News
Comments

Anticipating WWDC

Filed under: WWDCIt's March. It's the month where beer turns green, where the road repair crews start taking over the midwest of the United States, and when Apple usually announces its Worldwide Developers' Conference dates. With the hotly anticipated iPad introduction this year, more devs than ever are looking forward to seeing what WWDC will have on offer. Will WWDC bring the iPhone OS 4.0 announcement and the hardware refresh that we've speculated about? Or will the iPhone OS family remain in the 3.x generation for the foreseeable future? (The current release for the iPhone and iPod touch are at 3.1.3. The iPad will ship with firmware 3.2.) That's the question that has a lot of devs scratching their head. In the past two years, March has been the time when new iPhone SDKs were provided to developers, with the actual firmware released a few months later, somewhat in sync with WWDC. This year, with the iPad release due for the first week of April, the iPhone refresh seems to have been pushed out, or even to the side. Will Apple's WWDC announcement help clarify where we stand in the iPhone lifecycle? That's hard to say. I know a lot of devs are hoping that a new beta SDK will debut sometime in April, once the iPad has been released; with the new version focusing on the iPhone, WWDC sessions would follow up on that build. It would make sense to bring the iPhone up to at least 3.2, so that firmware releases remain in sync across all iPhone OS devices; however, by Jim Dalrymple's estimation we won't see a unified firmware version for both families until the autumn. What about iPhone OS 4.0? With the WWDC keynote being the only remaining scheduled event keynote in the Apple yearly cycle, it would make sense for Apple to use that platform to announce major a iPhone OS update, or a major Mac OS update for that matter. However, the bottom line is this: Apple keeps its secrets. We'll know when they tell us. That can make third-party planning challenging -- whether you want to schedule flights to California for WWDC, or prepare your applications for major firmware updates. We've emailed Apple for clarification on WWDC timing, and have yet to hear back. Here's a quick run-down of past TUAW WWDC announcement posts for your reference. WWDC '09 Details Posted Spring is in the air, although we're in the midst of a blizzard here in the Denver area. That means one thing -- the Apple Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC) is coming soon!Eric over at... Apple announces WWDC 08 dates With the iPhone SDK announcement last week, some of us here at TUAW were expecting a Worldwide Developer Conference date to be announced. Thankfully, the world has been put to rights, as Apple has... AppleInsider: WWDC to take place June 11th - 15th Take this with a grain of sodium chloride, but AI is reporting that "people familiar with conference planning" have tipped them off to the dates of this year's World Wide Developers Conference.... Also of interest: Apple's WWDC dates announced Rumor: Moscone schedule + "corporate event" = Verizon iPhone? TUAWAnticipating WWDC originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Read�|�Permalink�|�Email this�|�Comments iPhone - Unofficial Apple Weblog - Apple - AppleInsider - IPad
The Complete History of the Macworld Expo

For anyone who attended the very first Macworld San Francisco and then skipped the next 24, this year’s event might seem awfully similar to that very first show. Hot on the heels of the runaway success of the Mac and its own successful launch, Macworld magazine tapped event coordinator Peggy Kilburn in 1985 to develop a conference that “will bring (attendees) in contact with the people who best understand the far-reaching effects the Macintosh will have in business, schools and at home.” It was held in Feb. 21-23 and Steve Jobs didn’t even step foot in Brooks Hall, let alone address the crowd. Similarly, this year’s event won’t take place until February--abandoning its traditional January time slot held since 1986--and Jobs won’t be attending. But there’s something fitting about Macworld returning to its roots for its 25th anniversary. Before Steve turned it into his personal showcase and the Apple booth had to be draped in black curtains, Macworld was a place for fans and professionals to share ideas free from the prying eyes of PC users, where product announcements were welcome but not necessary, and the keynote was the least interesting part of the show. ��Macworld Expo the 1980s - The decade of the Mac Macworld Expo San Francisco 1985: When the doors closed on the first Macworld, which shared exhibit space with a boat show double-booked for the same weekend, more than 10,000 attendees had walked through its doors, and the bad taste from the Super Bowl XIX “Lemmings” ad was all but washed away. Hot items for the fledgling Macintosh included the Lotus Jazz office suite (but surprisingly, not Macintosh Office), MacPrompter for scrolling text, and a slew of video and imaging apps that leveraged the Mac’s powerful graphics capabilities. � Macworld Expo Boston 1985-86: While Apple kept a decidedly muted presence at the first two Macworld Boston Expos, the east-coast show quickly became cemented on the calendar of Apple fans and developers. With more than 500,000 Macs in circulation and the resignation of Steve Jobs fresh on their minds, attendees had more than enough to talk about at that first event, held Aug. 21-23, 1985, at the Bayside Exposition Center, and touted as a chance to see “all of the elements of the Macintosh Office. ... The 512K Macintosh, the LaserWriter, and AppleTalk, as well as Jazz from Lotus, are just a few of the products you’ll get to see.” �MWE SF 1986: After observing such a successful inaugural show, Apple CEO John Sculley--who reportedly credited Macworld for reinvigorating Apple after a disappointing end to 1984--took full advantage of the second annual expo, which expanded to the Civic Auditorium to accommodate larger crowds. While not quite worthy of Stevenote status, Apple’s less-than-charismatic leader unveiled the SCSI-equipped, 8MHz Macintosh Plus and pricey LaserWriter Plus during his keynote presentation. �MWE SF 1987: A heavy focus on desktop communications and networking brought the long-awaited AppleShare file server software and AppleTalk PC Card, and delivered effortless, cross-platform file sharing long before IBM developed its own solution. A major component of the floundering Macintosh Office, AppleShare survived long after Apple’s desktop publishing suite was sent to the junkyard. �MWE Boston 1987: Apple landed in Boston ready to show off HyperCard and script language HyperTalk, one of the first apps to utilize the hotlinking hypermedia concept that would become the cornerstone of the World Wide Web. Also making their debut were MultiFinder 5.0, the AppleFax modem and ImageWriter LQ.�MWE SF 1988: With some 350 exhibitors and 25,000 attendees, MacWorld kicked off its fourth annual San Francisco show with an emphasis on the Mac’s business capabilities. In his keynote speech, Sculley stressed Apple's commitment to networking and connectivity advancements, and introduced the zippy Laserwriter II family, with up to 8 pages per minute of printing power. � �MWE Boston 1988: Apple CEO John Sculley may have landed in Boston to show off the Apple Scanner, but the buzz on the trade floor was all about the Macintosh II, as developers showed off an array of drawing, writing and CAD tools to leverage the power of Apple’s newest Mac.�MWE SF 1989: Breaking a pattern of adding an “X” to Macs fitted with a Motorola 68030 processor (maybe Sculley didn’t want to announce the Mac SEx to a raucous convention crowd), Apple used its biggest stage to release the SE/30 upgrade, a Mac that would be as popular as it was long-lasting. Among the show favorites was the streamlined Claris MacWrite II, one of the last times a Claris product would be among the show favorites. �MWE Boston 1989: For the fifth anniversary of the Macworld Expo, Sculley opted to keep the anticipated Macintosh Portable (which would make its debut a month later, on Sept. 20) under wraps, and instead showcased the Mac’s educational possibilities with the Visual Almanac, an interactive multimedia demonstration kit for the classroom that utilized Apple’s groundbreaking HyperCard.�NEXT: Macworld Expo: The 1990's �Macworld Expo the 1990's - On the brink MWE SF 1990: The 40MHz Macintosh IIfx made a big splash at the first Macworld of the 90s, despite its six-figure price tag. One of the reasons for all that speed was the launch of a Mac-only graphics-editing program by a little company named Adobe, which generated quite a bit of interest on its own. � MWE Boston 1990: HyperCard 2.0 was all the rage at the subdued summer Macworld, but even Apple’s own booth had a hard time competing with the DTS’ dogcow buttons inscribed with her famous catchphrase, “Moof!” �MWE SF 1991: Developed to optimize the 68000 line of Macs, the slick, streamlined System 7 was the co-star of Macworld, sharing the limelight with Apple’s new multimedia app. Sculley’s keynote was its usual shade of dull, save the impressive QuickTime tour of Ben & Jerry’s Vermont factory, which roused the crowd from its slumber. Also unveiled were a series of networking products, including the Macintosh LC Ethernet card. �MWE Boston 1991: While PowerBook rumors were flying and many Mac users were getting their first glimpse at System 7, the trade floor was still buzzing about a bombshell announcement just weeks earlier. Industry rivals Apple and IBM (and Motorola) put aside their differences and entered into a unique partnership that would eventually produce the microchip that would power the Mac for more than a decade.� Macworld Expo Tokyo 1991-1992: Just because Apple didn’t bother to release any new products (although CEO John Sculley did cut the ribbon on opening day) doesn’t mean Macworld Tokyo had a hard time filling the Makuhari Messe convention center when it opened its doors on Feb. 13, 1991. A rabid overseas fanbase was eager to get their hands on the latest and greatest in Mac apps and accessories, and Apple embraced its new audience with open arms. MWE SF 1992: Continuing the theme of the prior year’s conference, Macworld 1992 featured hundreds of new applications using QuickTime and an astute prediction from Sculley: “I believe pervasive networking will be the driving force of the information industry during the 1990s.” The Mac may have been this crowd’s “ideal multimedia machine,” but an ex-Apple employee’s latest OS was making some noise up the road as the NeXTWORLD Expo opened its doors to those who wanted to think slightly differenter. �MWE Boston 1992: After a successful PowerBook launch the prior October, Apple used Macworld Boston to upgrade its best-selling model with more RAM and a lower price point, setting the stage for a series of dockable PowerBook Duos that would be released in the fall. MWE SF 1993: Held entirely at its now-permanent Moscone Center home, Sculley used his final Macworld San Francisco keynote to unveil a host of imaging products, including ColorSync, LaserWriter Pro workgroup printers, StyleWriter II personal printer, Apple Color Printer and Apple Color OneScanner. Making all those projects that much easier were the Apple Adjustable Keyboard and ADB Mouse II, Apple’s first teardrop-shaped clicker. � �MWE Boston 1993: The best product Steve Jobs didn’t have a hand in, Sculley finally rolled out the Newton MessagePad at Macworld Boston, more than a year after publicly demonstrating its prototype. Unlike anything on the market, Newton was a bold device with a brilliant interface that ought to have been as popular as the iPhone. Instead, only a few hundred thousand were sold over its four-and-a-half-year reign. �MWE Tokyo 1993: Apple’s first product launch outside the United States brought a slew of new hardware, including the Macintosh Color Classic, Macintosh LC III, Macintosh Centris 610 and 650, Macintosh Quadra 800, PowerBook 165c, and the LaserWriter Select 300 and 310 laser printers. All those new products paid off, as the expo attracted nearly 100,000 attendees in just its third year.� MWE SF 1994: With more than 70,000 attendees on hand to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Mac, the sprawling Apple booth didn’t disappoint. Visitors were met with a slew of new products, including a walking tour of its online service, eWorld, along with the recently released Macintosh TV and Powerbook Duo 270c. But buzz on the floor was mostly surrounding the upcoming PowerPC transition, which promised faster, more powerful Macs for the next decade. �MWE Boston 1994: The critical, if not commercial, success of Newton brought some 70,000 attendees to the following year’s Macworld Boston, forcing Apple to set up its booth across the street from the World Trade Center. It was worth the trip, as new Power Macs showed off the capabilities of the first PowerPC chips and System 7.5 introduced users to Stickies, WindowShade and the Control Strip. �MWE Tokyo 1994: Instead of showing off OS 7.5 for umpteenth time or adding another PowerPC model to its Power Mac line, Apple took the wraps off the QuickTake 100 digital camera. Designed in association with Kodak, the QuickTake looked more like a pair of binoculars than a camera but made an instant splash with the expo crowd. Also introduced was Color StyleWriter printer, to make sure all those photos looked their best. � MWE SF 1995: As expected, the chip transition was in full swing, with PowerPC Power Macs drawing attention at the expo, but the most excitement centered around Power Computing, the first company to take advantage of Apple’s licensing program. �MWE Boston 1995: Trying to steal some of the thunder from the forthcoming Windows 95 release, Apple demoed Copland in all its buggy, crashy glory on brand-new AppleVision displays. Be thankful it failed; if not, Steve might never have come back. �MWE Tokyo 1995: Apple welcomed a new clone manufacturer to its ranks, Japan-based Pioneer Electronic, and proudly took the wraps off the active-matrix PowerBook 5300c, which thankfully didn’t explode on the stage. The same can’t be said about the Singapore plant that was manufacturing them. MWE SF 1996: Sinking revenue and executive board shake-ups cast a dark shadow over Macworld’s 12th annual event, which saw a continued push away from Apple’s proprietary platform with the release of the PC compatibility card, capable of turning any Power Mac into a dual micro-processor system capable of running Windows 95. �MWE Boston 1996: The first U.S. keynote by CEO Gil Amelio made some attendees long for John Sculley, but the 20 percent across-the-board price cut on the Performa line was certainly welcome, as was the Performa 6400’s new InstaTower case. Before dousing the Copland project with a giant bucket of cold water, Gil got the crowd riled up by declaring Apple was “transitioning from a dialogue that has centered on survival to a dialogue that’s going to center on excitement.” We think the excitement he was referring to had something to do with the imminent launch of the first issue of MacAddict magazine. That, or the return of Steve Jobs, we’re not sure.� �MWE Tokyo 1996: CEO Gil Amelio announced the fruits of its partnership with Bandai in the form of a gaming console based on Apple’s Pippin technology. Officially called Pippin Atmark, the device was supposed to combine the best parts of each company into a super-computer-video-game-machine, and if you had stopped by Apple’s booth, it certainly seemed that way. Sadly, we know how the story ended. � MWE SF 1997: Steve Jobs’ first appearance on a Macworld stage was preceded by a lengthy, rambling Gil Amelio, whose three-hour, teleprompter-plagued speech may have inspired Jobs to take over speaking duties. Amelio was supposed to rev up the crowd by showing the stunning Twentieth Anniversary Mac and outlining Apple’s NeXT-based OS strategy, but botched the whole thing up, effectively ruining Steve’s big moment. �� MWE Boston 1997: As late as July 2, Amelio was planning to deliver the keynote address at Macworld Boston, so when he was abruptly forced out July 5, all eyes turned to the new kid on the block. The excitement was palpable when the lights finally dimmed, and when Steve stepped out on stage to a 30-second standing ovation, a new era in Apple had clearly begun. And then he announced a partnership with Microsoft, drawing boos. �MWE Tokyo 1997: Before Steve killed the project later in the year, Apple teamed with Fujifim for its last attempt at a digital camera, the QuickTake 200, which used removable cards to store pictures but was lost in a sea of cheaper, smaller entries. Also introduced at the show were the Power Macintosh 4400, 7300, 8600 and 9600, and the Powerbook 3400c, which immediately assumed the short-lived position of the world’s fastest laptop. MWE SF 1998: Just months before the iMac would turn the industry on its head, iCEO Steve’s first full Macworld San Francisco keynote brought no new products, but still had the crowd in awe with a surprise “one more thing” announcement: Apple’s profitable again. � �Macworld Expo New York 1998: Making the move south to the Big Apple could have been disastrous for Macworld, but diehard Mac fans would have jumped a motorcycle onto a speeding train to catch a glimpse of the iMac. Attendance dipped noticeably from the prior year’s Boston show, but enough shows up to give Macworld East a permanent new home in New York City’s Jacob K. Javits Convention Center.�MWE Tokyo 1998: The Macworld Tokyo crowd cheered politely for the debut of the first Japanese-language Think Different ad, but went absolutely wild when Steve Jobs appeared on stage (via a taped message). He didn’t show off any new products, but assured the audience that Apple wouldn’t be leaving them out of their new OS strategy: “Apple is committed to having the best kanji (Chinese characters) systems in the world, and we're pouring even more into R&D toward that end.” MWE SF 1999: A rainbow of iMacs greeted visitors to Apple’s booth, but all eyes were on “the world’s most open-minded personal computer,” a sleek tower dressed in blue and white with a hinged door for easy access to its G3 processor. And the color-coordinated Apple Studio Displays weren’t too shabby either. �MWE New York 1999: Say hello to the iBook. But first, say hello to Noah Wyle, star of “Pirates of Silicon Valley,” who fooled the crowd momentarily with his nearly-spot-on Steve Jobs impersonation (though he forgot to unscrew the cap to his water bottle). After a demo of the imminent OS 9, the real Steve unveiled Apple’s newest laptop, a candy-colored clamshell book that had a handle and looked strangely like a potty seat.� MWE Tokyo 1999: Steve’s first keynote at Macworld Toyko was basically a rewrite of January’s Macworld San Francisco presentation, with the exception of an untimely crash of the Power Mac G3 during Microsoft’s Internet Explorer demo. But all anyone really cared about were iMacs. �NEXT: Macworld Expo: The 2000's �Macworld Expo the 2000's - Apple's return MWE SF 2000: With the renaissance in full swing, Steve announced Apple’s next-generation operating system in earnest at the first Macworld of the new millennium. With “state-of-the-art plumbing,” “killer graphics” and a 12-month, “gentle migration,” Steve introduced the masses to the blue-tinged world of Aqua of the Dock and kept his promise: A public beta was in our hands by September. � MWE New York 2000: Indigo, Ruby, Sage and Snow iMacs, dual-processor Power Macs, optical mice, translucent keyboards, iMovie 2, and 15-, 17- and 22-inch displays. None stood a chance against the star-crossed star of the show, the jaw-dropping Power Mac G4 Cube. Everyone wanted to take one home, but strangely, few people actually did. �MWE Tokyo 2000: After an quiet debut in 1999, Steve pulled out all the stops in 2000, unveiling brand-new portables and Power Macs, including the iBook Special Edition and Pismo PowerBook. Steve also made good on his ’98 vow to include the highest-quality Japanese fonts in OS X. � MWE SF 2001: One of Jobs’ shining moments (even by his standards), the 2001 Stevenote featured a shipping date for Mac OS X, two more pieces of the digital hub (iDVD and iTunes), SuperDrive-equipped graphite Power Mac G4s, and the piece de resistance, the “mega-wide,” one-inch thick Titanium Power Mac G4. Suddenly, all was right-side up with the world (including the Apple logo on the case). �MWE New York 2001: A preview of Mac OS X Puma (and a few lengthy third-party demos) brought scarcely any new features, but faster iMacs and Quicksilver Power Macs promised an all-around zippier experience.� MWE Tokyo 2001: The final aesthetic flourish for the iMac brought the trippy Flower Power and Blue Dalmatian patterns and added CD-RW drives to accompany iTunes 1.1 Joining the art-deco all-in-ones were new Power Mac G4 Cubes, which also added the elusive CD-RW drives. MWE SF 2002: A 14-inch iBook joined the wildly popular 12-inch “ice-book” family and iPhoto rounded out Apple’s digital hub vision, but the show-stopper was the flat-panel iMac G4, an overdue update that was well worth the wait. Part-computer, part-sculpture, the “Sunflower” iMac firmly cemented the Stevenote as the greatest show on earth. �MWE New York 2002: A notably lackluster presentation eliminated Apple’s free e-mail in favor of a paid service and delivered a rehash of the Jaguar demo Steve gave two months earlier at WWDC. No killer new products to speak of, but iSync, iCal and iTunes 3 made their debut, along with solid-state iPods (with Windows support) and 17-inch iMacs, but attendees couldn’t help but notice the spring was missing from Steve’s step.�MWE Tokyo 2002: Steve crammed another 5 gigabytes into the diminutive iPod music player as the Macworld Tokyo expo was moved to the more spacious Big Sight convention center for Apple’s last overseas splash. Turned out the switch was prophetic, as Steve took the wraps off the stunning 23-inch Cinema HD display, Apple’s largest to date. � MWE SF 2003: Final Cut Express, Airport Extreme, iLife, Keynote and Safari would have been enough for most company’s trade shows, but not Apple. After nearly two hours of nonstop announcements, Steve saved the best for last: The largest (17-inch) and smallest (12-inch) PowerBooks ever, dressed to the nines in classy aluminum. �MWE New York 2003: After Steve bailed on his annual keynote to protest IDG’s plan to move to the expo back to Boston the following year, the show, now known as Macworld CreativePro Conference & Expo, found itself in a tailspin. Apple fulfilled its commitment to exhibit--and even announced the availability of Soundtrack as a standalone product--but the thrill was most definitely gone.�MWE Tokyo 2003: On the heels of the east-coast shake-up, Apple abruptly pulled out of the Japan show, too, and IDG cancelled the event altogether. MWE SF 2004: A somewhat disappointing keynote delivered Garageband and way too much John Mayer, but still finished on a high note as Steve unveiled the product no one knew they needed: a smaller iPod in a rainbow of flavors. �MWE Boston 2004-2005: A pair of intimate Boston expos closed the book on Macworld East for good, as IDG vowed to focus its efforts on the sole remaining show in San Francisco. MWE SF 2005: Also known as the keynote that brought down ThinkSecret, Steve took to the Moscone stage in 1995 looking to capitalize on all the attention Apple was getting. Along with a new iLife and a surprise successor to the defunct AppleWorks, two low-priced products sought to dispel the notion of Apple as a high-priced niche company: the $99 iPod shuffle and $499 Mac mini. MWE SF 2006: Apple kicked off the Intel transition by fitting its two most popular Macs with Core Duo processors. Little was changed from the new iMac aside from its new brain, but the PowerBook underwent a series of tweaks and refinements, including the retirement of its famous name “because we’re kind of done with Power and we want Mac in the name of our products.” �� MWE SF 2007: The last great Macworld keynote ever. Nuff said. MWE SF 2008: With the near-impossible task of following the launch of the iPhone, Steve took the stage for his last Macworld San Francisco keynote with a bag full of assorted treats--cheaper Apple TVs, iTunes movie rentals, iPod touch and iPhone software updates, Time Capsule--and one big trick. Steve’s lasting image as the master of Macworld ceremonies: sliding the Macbook Air out its plain manila envelope. MWE SF 2009: Apple’s final Macworld appearance was preceded by letter from Steve explaining his “nutritional problem” and “decision to have Phil deliver the Macworld keynote,” so attendees were prepared for a lackluster event. Apple surprised some with the new 8-hour, 17-inch Mac Book Pro, iLife ’09 and iWork ’09, but it just wasn’t the same without the man who made it all happen. � Macworld Expo elsewhere Building off the success of U.S. shows, a number of expos around the globe tried to capitalize on the Macworld name, to limited success: 1989: Macworld Canada 1991: Macworld Mexico, Hong Kong, Stockholm and New Zealand 1992: Macworld Barcelona, Paris (cancelled due to popularity of Apple Expo) 1994: Macworld Expo Summit (Washington, D.C.) 1996: Macworld Taiwan 2004: Macworld UK 2005: Macworld on Tour (only schedule date, in Kissimmee, Fla., cancelled) �
It’s Coming: Preparing for iPhone OS 4.0

If you’re excited about the forthcoming iPhone OS 4.0 update, you’re not alone. Here’s how you can have a smooth upgrade by getting ready for the latest and greatest ahead of time.iPhone updates are always a big deal, particularly major ones such as the forthcoming iPhone OS 4.0 announced in early April. Third-party developers have been working feverishly behind the scenes to make sure their hard work is compatible with Apple’s latest, but that doesn’t mean you can’t also do a little preparation in anticipation of its release, expected sometime this month.As always, your pals at MacLife.com are here to help guide the way -- so read on and let’s get ready to rumble, iPhone OS 4.0 style!Clean Up Your iTunes AppsIf you’ve used your iDevice for a while now, you’ve probably accumulated a lot of apps -- for example, our personal copy of iTunes is home to nearly 700 of them, including universal apps which run on both the iPhone/iPod touch and iPad. Now would be a good time to take inventory and maybe even do a little housekeeping.With each new iPhone OS, there are some unfortunate apps that become orphaned and may even cease to work at all with the latest version. One such example is Veiosoft’s DataCase, one of the earliest and best apps for transferring files to your iDevice, which has been seemingly abandoned by the developer after the most recent 1.1.1 update back in September, 2008. That means it’s never quite worked right on OS 3.x, and users who paid out their $6.99 are left to search for competing utilities that are updated more frequently. (DataCase is still for sale as of this writing, but based on a wave of negative reviews since the last update almost two years ago, it’s clearly not recommended for newer firmware.)Granted, DataCase is less than 1MB in size so it’s not a big hardship to just leave it on your hard drive, but removing it and other unused, unloved or simply outdated apps from your iTunes can only help keep the software running lean and mean. After all, who wants to wade through hundreds of unused apps in search of the one you really want anyway? Click on the Apps icon in your iTunes sidebar, select the app you wish to remove while holding down the Control key and select “Delete” from the submenu.Of course, deleting an app from iTunes doesn’t mean you’ll have to buy it all over again should the developer come calling later with an updated version. iTunes remembers all of your purchases -- regardless of whether they reside in iTunes at the moment or not -- so you will always be able to download them again for free, unless the developer specifically releases a separate new version for a fee, as was the case with the popular Tweetie 2 app (which has since become the official, and free, Twitter app).We’d advise that you back up your unwanted apps before emptying your trash -- you never know when you might change your mind and decide to reinstall something, especially if it’s an app that vanishes from the App Store due to some change in Apple’s policy, similar to what happened with the Google Voice apps in the past. (Although keep in mind, Apple can always remotely “kill” apps they don’t want you to use, but no harm in having them backed up just the same.)�Get UpdatedOn the same train of thought as getting rid of unwanted apps, it also pays to make sure you’re updated to the latest and greatest version of your apps. In the next few weeks, you’ll likely see a flood of new updates as developers release versions that will be fully compatible with all of the goodness inherent in iPhone OS 4.0, so it pays to check for such updates on a regular basis and stay ahead of the curve.You can check for updates on your device by opening the App Store app; usually after a moment, you’ll see a badge on the Updates tab notifying you of anything new, but sometimes you have to expressly press Updates to refresh them. Note that this will only look for updates for apps you have installed on that particular device -- if you want to check for all app updates, you’ll need to use iTunes. Select the Apps icon in the sidebar and then click the little arrow next to “Check for Updates” in the lower right-hand corner.Some of us here at MacLife.com are quite diligent about app updates, checking several times a day to see what’s new -- it’s kind of like a mini-Christmas every day, especially when your most-used apps are empowered with cool new features or get annoying bugs squashed. Most app updates are posted in the afternoon and evening, so no sense going around clicking half-cocked in the morning.One of the better ways to stay abreast of the situation is through a website such as AppShopper.com. The brainchild of the folks behind MacRumors.com, AppShopper lets you create a free account to track your own apps or even create a wish list of ones you might want to buy in the future, as well as providing a wide variety of RSS feeds for both iPhone and iPad to track updates, new apps, price changes and more.Twitter is another great way to track app updates, since many developers big and small will give a heads-up when new apps or updates have been approved by Apple so you can start exhausting your finger by looking for them on iTunes.Jailbreakers: Proceed with CautionMajor OS updates are a big deal on any platform, but as anyone who has jailbroken their iDevice knows, even the little updates can create a tsunami of problems for those living on the cutting edge. Thankfully, the hackers are ahead of the curve yet again, and beta builds of iPhone OS 4.0 have already been successfully jailbroken -- but that doesn’t mean you should throw caution to the wind and forge ahead blindly.If you rely on an unsanctioned, unlocked iPhone for cellular and data access, do yourself a favor and don’t upgrade to OS 4.0 until you get an “all clear” from the hacker community. Just because the beta builds have been jailbroken does not mean that your phone will remain unlocked (in fact, it’s almost a certainty that it won’t), and with new hardware imminent, we don’t know yet if any of the unlocking patches will even work. We repeat: If you’ve unlocked your iPhone, avoid iPhone OS 4.0 until you hear that it’s safe to upgrade!Whether or not you care about unlocking your iPhone, if you have it jailbroken now or plan to in the future, you should make sure your SHSH blobs are backed up in case you ever want to return to iPhone OS 3.x. Say what?!Apple has attempted to thwart the hackers by adding extra layers of security in newer devices, in particular the iPhone 3GS, iPad and third-generation iPod touch. If you have one of these devices, you should do yourself a favor and extract the “SHSH” records from your device (they’re different for every single unit), which can be used to restore to older firmware, should things not work out so great with iPhone OS 4.0.It’s easy to backup your “SHSH blobs” using a free utility called Umbrella and a detailed guide already posted at Cult of Mac -- the whole process takes only a few minutes, so we encourage everyone to do it, even if you don’t plan to jailbreak your device anytime soon.Save Your Old Firmware Along the same lines as backing up your SHSH blobs, you’d do well to take a visit to your Home > Library > iTunes > iPhone Software Updates folder and back up whatever .ipsw files you find there. With older versions of iTunes, any iPhone firmware updates were downloaded to this folder and stayed there forevermore, but more recent versions of iTunes will move them to the Trash as soon as you download a new one. There’s a good chance your folder may even be empty already! The reason you’ll want to save these .ipsw restore files is that shortly after iPhone OS 4.0 is released, Apple will likely wipe all traces of OS 3.1.3 (the latest version) off the map and prevent it from being downloaded again; if you saved your SHSH blobs and ever need to restore to an older version, you’ll need at least one of those old firmware files to do so. Thankfully, a Google search ought to dig up a number of non-Apple sources for downloading old firmware in the event that yours is already MIA. Keep in mind that you’ll need the appropriate restore file -- the original iPhone will start with “iPhone1,1”, the iPhone 3G will start with “iPhone1,2” and the iPhone 3GS will start with “iPhone2,1”, for instance.NEXT: Backing up your stuff and organizing your screens. >>�Back That Stuff Up!Perhaps the most crucial pre-update task of all is having a proper backup of your iDevice. The problem for many is that those backups have begun to take longer and longer as we’ve filled up apps with files that aren’t part of the iTunes ecosystem -- the more impatient among us might decide to click on the “X” to stop the iTunes backup in order to get a new sync going, only to later find that they need to restore from said backup and find themselves unable to do so.If you don’t use a lot of in-app files, this may not be such a big deal for you. Casual users can likely start from scratch without too much grief, but if you’ve used your iDevice for any length of time like many of us, chances are you’d rather have intensive, painful oral surgery than have to start over from scratch. However, if you port a lot of files onto your device for work or even casual uses such as reading comic books or large PDF files, having a good backup should not be optional.To avoid long backup times, we recommend letting iTunes complete its backup each time you sync. Since the software is only backing up what’s changed since the previous sync, the incremental backup time should get shorter each time you do so. Also, once you have plugged into iTunes and completed a backup and sync, you won’t have to go through the backup process again unless you unplug the sync cable -- iTunes knows you’ve just backed up, so it simply does a quick sync until you plug the cable in again, in case you just want to just add new apps.That said, you can backup your device at any time by selecting your iDevice in the iTunes sidebar with the Control key pressed down and then select “Back Up” from the submenu.Organize Your ScreensOne of the new features of iPhone OS 4.0 that’s most anticipated is Folders, Apple’s new way of organizing apps on your iDevice. With the current firmware, you’re only capable of seeing 180 apps on any one device across 11 screens (though you can always load more and find them via Spotlight). Thanks to the drag and drop simplicity of the Folders feature, you’ll soon be able to have up to a whopping 2,160 apps on your device and find them grouped by category -- assuming you have that many to begin with and use every available space in a Folder.To prepare for Folders, now might be a great time to spend a few minutes organizing your apps so they’re in close proximity to each other based on how you plan to group them. That way, as soon as you update to iPhone OS 4.0, you can drag them together into Folders and you’ll be good to go. If you have a lot of apps spread over many screens, this task is made easier from within iTunes, where you can easily drag app icons from screen to screen or even rearrange whole screens at once.It’s Safe to Buy Some iBooks NowIf you already have an iPad with iBooks installed on it, you can feel safe in purchasing all the e-books you want from the iBookstore, knowing that they’ll work just fine on your iPhone or iPod touch once you’ve upgraded to iPhone OS 4.0.Buy as many iBooks as you’d like and then sync your iPad to iTunes, which will copy those new purchases across to your computer. After your upgrade to iPhone OS 4.0, you’ll be able to select the same e-books and copy them straight over to your iPhone or iPod touch, just like magic.Let’s Not Forget iTunes ItselfWhile we hope to know for sure when iPhone OS 4.0 will be available to download during Steve Jobs’ WWDC 2010 keynote on Monday, June 7, keep in mind that the new firmware will most likely also require a new update to iTunes itself, if history is any indication. We’re guessing at the very least, a new iTunes will let us arrange apps by Folders, for instance.The current version of iTunes at this writing is 9.1.1; if you haven’t updated lately, now would be a dandy time to do so. And really, there’s no reason not to -- while some previous iTunes updates have tripped up jailbroken devices, iTunes 9.1.1 isn’t one of them, and the hackers have already given a green light to use it.Take Stock of Your MediaFinally, a new OS install is always a good time to take stock of that non-app iTunes media taking up space on your iDevice. If you’re like most of us, you’ve got old podcasts played long ago that you neglected to delete, music you wish had stayed in the seventies and probably even some space-guzzling videos you’ve already watched and have since bored of.Why carry this stuff over to iPhone OS 4.0? Especially if you plan to buy a new iPhone, the less you have to restore and sync to a fresh device, the better. Purge that media now by deselecting it from within iTunes, and then click Apply to sync your changes and remove the great unwanted from your device. There, now don’t you feel better having done some summer cleaning?Oh, and don’t forget about all the photos and movies you’ve shot with your iPhone! While those cherished memories are always backed up during an iTunes sync (so you can safely move them to a new device), you should make a habit of clearing them off your device on a regular basis, both for safety as well as speeding up that iTunes backup. Once those photos and videos are safely stored in your iPhoto library, you can always sync them back to your iPhone (where photos will take up less space by being optimized for the device’s screen) -- they won’t be backed up by iTunes since they can be restored simply by syncing from your photo library.There’s one other very good reason to purge old media, too: If space on your iDevice is at a premium, you’ll want to free up some storage for OS 4.0 to make sure the upgrade goes smoothly.Is Your Device Compatible?iPhone OS 4.0 is expected sometime this month for the iPhone and (at additional cost) iPod touch. Sadly, Apple has already stated that the iPad won’t get any OS 4.0 love until the fall, so if that’s your only iDevice, enjoy your summer and don’t bother looking for a major update until then.It’s important to note that not every iPhone and iPod touch is welcome to the OS 4.0 party -- specifically, the first-generation iPhone and iPod touch devices released in 2007 have been put on notice and OS 3.1.3 appears to be the end of the line for them. Recent reports claim that there’s no real technical reason to exclude them, and early beta builds of OS 4.0 have even been shown running on the original iPhone -- just don’t expect Apple to officially support that configuration, and you’ll still be limited as to what new features you’ll have access to.Likewise, even if your device can install iPhone OS 4.0, you may not be able to use every new feature -- for instance, the iPhone 3G will not support multitasking. iPhone 3GS and third-generation (32GB or 64GB) iPod touch owners are good to go, as well as those of you holding your credit cards in your sweaty little hands waiting to buy the newest iPhone, expected to be announced at WWDC on Monday, June 7.*****Now that all of that hard work is over, only one thing remains: Waiting for iPhone OS 4.0 to actually be released. Hey Steve Jobs, maybe you can help us with that…?�
Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

Daniel Eran Dilger Today's broad array of smartphone operating system contenders are offering lots of potential answers to a problem that only requires one. It appears the market has two options ahead: either pool generic hardware makers behind a single operating system and deliver a smartphone marketplace that resembles the Windows PC market, or watch them fall to a dominant leader and have a smartphone market that resembles Apple's iPod ecosystem. This decision isn't going to be made by a class of intellectual elite, or by government mandate. it's going to be made by the market itself. Here are the factors that will influence the outcome, either marginalizing Apple's iPhone into a niche as the company has twice experienced previously at the hands of DOS in 1981 and Windows in 1991, or positioning it as the dominant leader as Apple has achieved for itself with the iPod since 2001. The third segment in this series looks at Google's Android and the Open Handset Alliance as a possible “DOS-attack” against Apple's iPhone. Subsequent segments will look at Nokia's newly opened Symbian and other mobile contenders challenging the iPhone. Will the iPhone Meet its Match from a Modern Day DOS? Will Windows Mobile Play DOS to Apple’s iPhone? Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone? Will Symbian Play DOS to Apple's iPhone? Google Acquires Android. In 2005, Google purchased a startup named Android, which had been in business for nearly two years. The secretive startup was known only to be working on software for mobile phones. It was being run by a who's who of mobile industry veterans, including Andy Rubin, the founder of Danger. Rubin had earlier worked at WebTV along with Chris White and Andy McFadden, both of whom had also joined Android. Richard Miner of Orange and Nick Sears of Tmobile also brought their mobile provider experience to Android. At the time of the acquisition, Google didn't announce any plans for Android and instead only told BusinessWeek, “We acquired Android because of the talented engineers and great technology. We're thrilled to have them here.” It appeared that Google was only going to be expanding its search services for mobile phone users, along the lines of the Google SMS answer system it had recently released. Google Buys Android for Its Mobile Arsenal - BusinessWeek Windows XP Media Center Edition vs Apple TV: The Fall of WebTV The GPhone Myth. As reports began to leak out about talks between Google and hardware makers throughout 2007, rumors began to fly about “the GPhone,” a competitive offering that was supposed to take on the iPhone. Some phone enthusiasts hoped Google would jump in to rescue the struggling OpenMoko project and turn it into a viable project that could attack Apple's new smartphone. In October 2007, I printed the Great Google GPhone Myth, taking apart the idea that Google would be directly competing against the iPhone, and describing that Google was really working on a free alternative to Windows Mobile as a conduit for getting its search and related services on a broader variety of mobiles. Google's services were already on the iPhone. In November, Google played its hand: it had organized a consortium of companies called the Open Handset Alliance to develop open standards for mobiles. The first product from the group would be Android, a mobile operating system built on the Linux kernel. Google wasn't getting into the phone handset business at all; it was only making sure that its mobile search products would not risk being marginalized by the threat of Windows Mobile on phones in the same way Microsoft had been working to leverage its PC monopoly to push Google search off the Windows desktop. The Great Google gPhone Myth Introducing Android: Leader of Linux. Two weeks later, Google released an early version of the Android software. On top of a Linux kernel, Android uses a specialized version of a Java Virtual Machine that takes Java language code and turns it into what Google calls “Dalvik bytecode” rather than Java bytecode as a standard JVM would. This allows Google to leverage existing and familiar Java language tools without paying Sun for a Java license. Like Mac OS X and its fraternal iPhone OS, Android includes a variety of open source libraries, including SQLite and WebKit. On top of that, Google developed a series of frameworks that handle the tasks Cocoa Touch does on the iPhone. Android also bundles a set of applications. While Apple adapted its existing Mac OS X to work in a mobile environment to create the iPhone OS, Android is more like a customized Java environment running on a specialized mobile Linux variant: elements of maturity in an otherwise experimental new platform. What is Android? -Google Android was by no means the first mobile OS using Linux. Both Palm and its amputated ACCESS software arm have Linux-based mobile platforms. Nokia has Maemo, which it uses in its Internet Tablets, and also recently acquired Trolltech and its Qtopia mobile Linux platform. Motorola has teamed up with MontaVista Software to use its Mobilinux. Intel created the Moblin project for mobile Linux, aimed at Internet devices. Google's OHA also isn't the first consortium to attempt to standardize a mobile Linux platform. The OSDL started the Mobile Linux Initiative to define requirements for hardware; the Consumer Electronics Linux Forum (CELF) then worked to define various phone profiles aimed at the Japanese market; the Linux Phone Standard (LiPS) Forum tried to do the same thing in Europe. In 2007, LiPS was folded into the new LiMo Foundation, along with the OSDL. All of these committees have had some overlap and some complementary features. Several of Google's OHA partners are also LiMo members, including NTT DoCoMo, Wind River, and Motorola. So why didn't Google just join LiMo? “LiMo, very candidly, wasn't moving fast enough,” OHA board member John Bruggeman told CNET. Google hopes to herd the Linux cats into a progressive, structured platform that can battle against Symbian and Windows Mobile to succeed as the new DOS of smartphones. Will Google fracture or unify mobile Linux? The Presumption of the Necessity of DOS. The previous segment examining Windows Mobile pointed out how the PC industry as a whole assumed that Microsoft's desktop Windows monopoly would easily take over dominance in the MP3 player market, pushing Apple into a niche position. This was expected because DOS had pushed Apple's early computers into a reduced role starting in 1981, and Microsoft had repeated this again in 1991 when the DOS world migrated to Windows, effectively pruning Apple's Macintosh into a Bonsai platform. The inability of one company to dominate any product category has been frequently repeated by PC industry pundits as a given, despite the fact that history is full of examples of this happening. Sony dominated personal music players for two decades under the Walkman brand even while equally large competitors tried to push it from this position; Nintendo has similarly owned handheld gaming despite ill-fated efforts to grab a piece of its pie by products running a generic platform such as Microsoft's WinCE (Gizmondo), Linux (GP32), and Symbian (N-Gage). In fact, outside of the Windows/DOS PC, there are actually few examples of a generic platform taking over an industry. Nearly every other consumer-facing product uses proprietary platforms: car makers, stereo equipment, appliances and so on typically all use designs custom to their maker. The paradox of the Windows PC market has been that Microsoft's broadly licensed software supposedly saves hardware makers from investing in software development while ensuring compatibility, when in reality it adds significant costs to PC makers while limiting their ability to differentiate themselves. That explains why PC makers have been perpetually merging together and going out of business while Microosft has rolled in money over the last two decades. Parallel efforts to copy Microsoft in broadly licensing an operating system have regularly failed: IBM's OS/2, Apple's Mac OS, Palm's PDA OS, even Microsoft's own efforts to duplicate Windows dominance in other markets, from copy machines to PDAs to smartphones to SPOT watches to music players. The closest copy may be Symbian, but its customers are partners, not simply consumers of a generic third party's operating system as Windows licensees are. That indicates it is not necessary to duplicate the dominance exercised by Microsoft over the PC industry in the smartphone market. Google's Android and Symbian exist more as technology sharing pacts among manufacturers, but both aspire to take Microsoft's DOS role among smartphones. However, the idea that Apple's iPhone must be dethroned by a modern-day DOS, whether Windows Mobile, Android, or Symbian, is not just debatable, but does not sync with the reality of more recent events. Apple's recent history of the iPod further refutes the idea that a software analog to Microsoft is needed. The iPod Emergence: Apple & Pixo vs IBM & Microsoft. Apple's iPod in 2001 made no effort to clone the DOS business model; it actually did the opposite. When Apple entered the market, there were a number of existing MP3 devices using custom software, hardware designs, and DRM codecs. The iPod used off the shelf components to deliver a custom MP3 player using third party software, but Apple also added its own technologies: easy to use sync with iTunes, a fast Firewire interface that made uploading music far faster than the prevailing USB 1.0, and an attractive industrial design. With the iPod, Apple played the role of IBM in 1981, using Pixo's embedded operating system to enter the market quickly, just as IBM had used DOS. The difference was that Apple didn't direct any market attention toward Pixo and added a lot of value on top of that core embedded OS. A modern day Compaq couldn't simply clone the hardware and license Pixo to run on it in order to compete against the iPod, because the iPod was much more than just generic hardware running Pixo software. As the iPod developed, Pixo's role diminished and was eventually displaced. Just like IBM, Apple jumped into a new market just as demand was beginning to explode. Apple made MP3 players far more attractive to a general audience by delivering greater playback capacity than most entry level devices offered, along with an ease of use that encouraged buyers to jump in at the higher end of the market. That left Apple with not only the lion's share of the market, but also by far the most profitable segments of the market. Two decades prior, IBM badly fumbled its play with the early PC and ended up irrelevant in the PC world by the late 80s, sideswiped by Microsoft's DOS and the cloners who were licensing it in parallel, notably Compaq and later HP and Dell. Steve Jobs had witnessed that happen, and was determined to not let it happen again to Apple. Rather than being manipulated by a software middleware vendor as IBM had, Apple worked to incrementally develop the iPod market itself. After consuming the hard drive-based player market, Apple took on the Flash RAM-based market with a tiny hard drive system used in the iPod Mini, and followed up with Flash-based devices of its own in the Nano and Shuffle. This allowed Apple to progressively serve an increasingly wider market, incrementally growing upon an established foundation. With the iPod, Apple became, in effect, an IBM with its own internal Microsoft. Microsoft's Failure Despite Features. In contrast, Microsoft entered the music player market by promoting music player hardware reference designs around WinCE. However, it was unable to ship a finished design until the iPod had become firmly established around 2005. Later branded as PlaysForSure, the devices were sold by various hardware makers and all purported to support the same DRM and the same music subscription services while also offering a broader array of hardware that presented video before the iPod did, supported wireless before the iPod, and so on. Despite these unique features, all of those PFS designs still failed. Microsoft blamed the failure of PFS upon its music store and hardware partners and decided to take Apple on itself in 2006. It relaunched a Toshiba PFS player as its own device under the Zune brand, adding WiFi music sharing features and a larger display than the current Pods had. It failed dramatically as well. Did Microsoft's attempts to float a new DOS among music players fail because of Apple's success, or due to Microsoft's own problems? The failure of the Zune, which followed the iPod model rather than the DOS model, seems to suggest that Microsoft itself was to blame. Consider too that Microsoft's Windows Mobile phones, which use the same underlying operating system as its failed PlaysForSure music players and the Zune, had similarly flopped even before Apple could release a charismatic phone equivalent to the iPod. Of course, when the iPhone was released, it hit Windows Mobile hardest. The iPhone made Windows Mobile Smartphones look ridiculous and underpowered, and made Windows Mobile Pocket PC phones look clumsy and awkward, despite the fact that they both supported a variety of features the iPhone didn't, including the ability to edit documents, capture video, send MMS, and so on. Simply adding on features did not enable Microsoft to compete against Apple. The only conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that competing against Apple requires more than just having a feature arsenal. Microsoft's failures in themselves do not necessarily mean that Google's Android will fail in its attempts to float its own smartphone platform. Why Microsoft’s Zune is Still Failing Microsoft’s Zune, Vista, and Windows Mobile 7 Strategy vs the iPhone Will Google Succeed where Microsoft Failed? Microsoft's demonstrated inability to successfully enter consumer markets for MP3 players and smartphones has given observers little faith that the company will somehow turn things around in late 2009 when its next generation of devices are expected to be released. However, prior to that the first fruits of Google's efforts to build its own smartphone operating environment will arrive. Will Google's Android take over Microsoft's crown as the “DOS vendor” among smartphones? Supporters of Google's Android project point to some parallels between Android for smartphones and Windows on the PC: Android will allow hardware makers to differentiate in ways that can offer features Apple can't (or doesn't want to); it should allow software developers to offer features Apple does not allow on the iPhone; it embraces open, hobbyist experimentation in ways that Apple currently isn't; and it opens the potential for content providers that Apple is not interested in allowing. Openness is Android's key competitive feature. Will all this openness allow Google to unseat the iPhone to become the primary platform developers want to participate in, and subsequently soak up the market for third party hardware makers that Windows Mobile serves? While Google currently has no market share due to the fact that no Android phones have yet shipped, it does have broad vocal support from a variety of the same kinds of hardware manufacturers that supported DOS and Windows and helped to make those platforms successful in the desktop PC market. HTC and Android. The first Android phone is expected to be the HTC Dream; Taiwan's HTC (High Tech Computer) also manufactures Palm's Treo Pro phone as well as many of the most visible Windows Mobile devices. In addition to models produced under its own name, HTC also sells Windows Mobile devices under the Dopod brand, as well as no-name phones branded by providers, such as AT&T, Orange, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Vodafone, and others. HTC will also be building the XPERIA X1 Windows Mobile phone for Sony Ericsson. HTC was quick to throw its support behind Android despite its long term alliance with Windows Mobile. Why would it so enthusiastically support an unproven platform from a company that has no experience in consumer hardware platforms? One can only assume that HTC is not happy with the current state of Windows Mobile, and desperately wants another “DOS” to succeed where Microsoft's has so spectacularly failed. As an Original Design Manufacturer for Palm, HTC watched as Palm adopted Windows Mobile in place of the Palm OS and subsequently fell even deeper into crisis. Palm's only successful phone since has been its Palm OS-based Centro. HTC undoubtedly sees Android as its ticket to becoming the next Dell, but without a similar dependance upon Microsoft. Android for mobile phones is essentially playing the role of Linux for PCs, except that it has the backing of a major company behind it. Can Android Take on the iPhone with Openness as its Feature? As great as this sounds, it's important to consider that Linux on the desktop has made no significant progress in eating into Windows dominance after a decade of trying. Being open, free, flexible, and decentralized hasn't been enough of an advantage to get consumers to migrate from Windows to Linux in any fraction of significance. Similarly, in the music business, Linux-based MP3 players have had no impact on the iPod, despite offering more features, flexibility, support for additional codecs, and so on. In the mobile phone area, Linux enjoys a sizable portion of the smartphone market, but this is almost entirely due to phones sold by Motorola in China, where the advantages of Linux' openness are void. Motorola's Linux phones offer nothing to users in terms of openness or flexibility, and are really no different in terms of features than other appliance 'feature phones' based upon closed operating systems. And again, a key problem with assaulting Apple in a feature war is that neither the iPod nor the iPhone became popular by being “highly featured.” They both delivered perhaps 80% of the functionality found in all other devices in the market. Rather than trying to match every feature and cater to every niche as Microsoft had with Windows Mobile, Apple's devices did a few things very well at launch, and incrementally developed into full featured devices that still lack some of the more unique features of their competitors. Further, in terms of openness, the demographic that embraces Linux' characteristic freedoms is not the same as the demographic that buys smartphones in quantity and then pays for data service. This is a critical fact to consider because a big part of the iPhone's success stems from the fact that it is being pushed by mobile providers who want to capture the cream of the market willing to pay a premium for data services. The Frankenphone. Combining the fractured aesthetic of HTC's Windows Mobile phone hardware with Android's software, based upon Linux' perpetually unfinished DIY openness and Google's Java-like development platform, will not result in a product similar to the iPhone. Instead, it will look a lot like phones that have already failed in the market. Apple's advantage comes from slick hardware designs with a close attention to detail, combined with software that purposely does less so that it can do what it does better. Even Apple's own conservative attempts to broaden its software capabilities with iPhone 2.0 have resulted in instability problems that can be blamed upon both Apple's early releases of its phone operating system and software from inexperienced third party developers new to the platform. Would the current frustrations with iPhone 2.0 be somehow mitigated by additional openness that also embraced all kinds of variables from different hardware makers with less quality control than Apple, a loose committee of additional cooks working to serve up operating system features targeted at every possible conceived need, and a wider third party software group with fewer constraints on illegal behaviors? The Failure of Open. While it is politically unpopular to criticize the well meaning efforts of open source contributors, the failure of Linux on the desktop, the failure of the vaporware Indrema game console, and the failure of the OpenMoko project to deliver a workable phone within a year of its deadline all underline the serious problems open development faces in the world of consumer oriented devices. Open has simply failed to deliver on its promises in the world of consumer hardware. OpenMoko was supposed to release its first mobile phone to consumers for $250 several months in advance of the iPhone. When the iPhone shipped, the group then announced new plans to get its phone out by the end of 2007. Instead, this spring the group announced new plans to move to an entirely different development platform, and ship its phone mid year for $400 with limited functionality and incomplete software outside of basic GSM phone features. Linux's notable successes, from Motorola's Linux phones to the Tivo DVR to Linksys Routers, have often come without any associated openness or freedom, and were instead delivered simply to provide their manufacturer with a free kernel to build upon. This indicates that while Linux may find its way into an increasing number of smartphones, it will likely not be accompanied by the glorious freedom of an open development environment Google has said it would offer with Android. Apple iPhone vs the FIC Neo1973 OpenMoko Linux Smartphone Can Google Succeed Where Open Has Previously Failed? Despite “openness” being Android's strongest competitive feature compared to Apple's iPhone, Google recently revealed that its wide-open development model is intentionally gravitating towards a closed association of top tier partners due to practical considerations. In July, Google accidentally sent out a notice that revealed that it had been seeding private SDK updates to only a subset of its contributors, angering those who believed that Android would be as open as Linux on the desktop or the OpenMoko project. Further, Google has restricted initial development to higher level APIs just as Apple did, further indicating that Google itself realizes that being wildly open to impress a minority of hobbyists will not result in the commercial success of its new platform. That serves to neuter Android's primary advantage over the iPhone. Without delivering on the premise of being wide open, Android is really just a less mature set of Java libraries used to create a specialized binary that runs on a Linux foundation. Unlike Apple's iPhone, Android phones won't have a slick user interface developed by professional artists, nor the iPhone's legacy of mature software development frameworks crafted over the last thirty years, nor the iPhone's tightly integrated hardware with award winning industrial design, nor its marketing power tied into the iPod and Apple's retail stores. Android won't be an open iPhone, it will only be a Windows Mobile phone with a better kernel that runs specialized Java software instead of Win32 or .NET code. Don't expect consumers to be impressed by that. The Biggest Missing Feature. There is one remaining factor that strangles to death any last remaining hope that Android might assassinate the iPhone and assume the crown of the “DOS of smartphones.” That is: Android delivers zero price advantage to consumers. In 1981 and 1991, consumers who wanted Apple computers faced the sticker shock of a somewhat arrogant price tag. Apple sold its computers, as it still does, at the higher end of the market, but there was simply far more range in prices available. In 1981, that meant the Apple II was $2600 and the new Apple III was $3500, even before you added a monitor. On the low end, Commodore sold its far less powerful, but “still a computer” Vic-20 for $300, while IBM entered the market with the IBM PC at $3000. Over the next few years, Apple focused on delivering additional sophistication at the same price, releasing the $10,000 Lisa and then the $2,500 Macintosh. IBM continued selling PCs in the same $3,000 to $10,000 range, but other DOS PC vendors began selling machines at prices that ranged as low as $1500. That left Apple with a roughly $1000 price premium over low end PCs. The products weren't really comparable, but consumers only saw the huge price difference. In 1991, Apple was still selling moderate to high-end Macintoshes for $3,800 to $10,000; the crippled Mac LC was $2500, and obsolete-at-birth Mac Classic ranged from $999 to $1500. Windows allowed PC makers to ship a functional $1500 PC and claim a rough approximation to Apple's $2500 entry level system, maintaining that apparent $1000 price premium. Today, pundits are lucky to find a Dell or HP system that is even a couple hundred dollars less than a comparable Mac. However, in the smartphone business, the iPhone 3G is now the same price, if not less, than generic competing phones on the market. Even more significant is the fact that the price of the phone hardware is nearly nothing compared to the cost of the service plan. This fact simply eases any price premium that could cause buyers to flock to a smartphone running a generic operating system over buying the iPhone 3G, regardless of whether it runs Windows Mobile or Android. 1990-1995: Planting Software Seeds Android Partners Have Already Failed. That same pricing principle similarly prevented buyers from considering many of the alternatives to the iPod. While Apple's original iPod models were more expensive than many of the first MP3 players on the market, they were price competitive with models offering similar features. By 2004, it was Apple who was undercutting MP3 competitors on price. Microsoft offered zero price advantage when it began selling the Zune, a major factor in its failure, but Microsoft simply couldn't out-price the iPod; it was already losing money offering the Zune at the same price as the iPod. Apple now has tremendous market power in buying RAM and other components that will prevent any competitors from being able to offer a huge discount over the iPhone's $199 price tag. Even if competitors were to give their phones away, they would only offer a $200 discount to users who would then still need to pay the same mobile fees to use the phone. Android's other partners, including Samsung and LG, have already failed to capture any significant market share in the music player market. Are they going to maintain their position as smartphone makers now that they face similar competition from Apple, its iPod ecosystem, its iTunes Music and Apps Store, Apple's retail store experience, and other factors that are pushing the iPhone? If they can, it is not obvious how partnering with Android will help. Other Problems for Android. Android was announced in early November 2007 and was followed with an early preview SDK within a couple weeks, a month ahead of Apple's initial announcement of the iPhone 2.0 SDK. However, between March and July 2008, Apple delivered nine progressive releases of its SDK, opened its App Store, and sold 60 million apps, raising $30 million to support iPhone software development in just the first month. It has since released three more SDK updates to developers related to iPhone 2.1, which is expected next month. Android just published its first open SDK beta update earlier this week, warning developers that “applications developed with it may not quite be compatible with devices running the final Android 1.0.” Additionally, Android still has no phones available. By the time the HTC Dream is expected to launch, Apple will have an installed base of around ten million iPhone (and iPod touch) users supporting software development through iTunes. The business model for selling Android apps is no better than that for selling jailbreak iPhone apps: there is no iTunes Apps Store to promote them, so users will have to track them down on their own. Android developers also have no real freedom that jailbreak iPhone developers lack. The only difference is that there are ten million iPhones to sell jailbreak apps to, and currently zero Android phones. If selling a jailbreak iPhone app sounds like more trouble than its worth, imagine trying to sell Android apps to a non-existant audience. Now add the official iPhone App Store into the mix, where publicity, promotion and profits are booming. What platform is going to have the most applications? How many users will flock to a smartphone platform with no apps? The wisdom of releasing a desirable phone and achieving a significant installed base before releasing an SDK makes a lot more sense in retrospect. Additionally, while Apple has a decade of experience in shipping regular updates to Mac OS X and its Xcode developer tools, Google has only shipped a random assortment of web-oriented SDKs (a number of which have been abandoned) as a tangent to its core business of selling advertisements. When the Android SDK 1.0 is finished later this year, developers will not only lack an installed base to sell their apps to, but will also have no high profile market for selling their apps in, and subsequently no financial incentive to develop applications that add value to the Android platform, just like Linux on the PC desktop. Around the same time, possibly within the next month, Apple will be shipping its second major OS release: iPhone 2.1. Apple will also be upgrading its entire user base to the new software so that developers will have a cohesive platform to target. This mirrors the efforts Apple has taken to upgrade its Mac OS X users to the same reference release. Mobile developers will be seeing money pouring in via iTunes while crickets chirp in the Android section of various mobile online stores. Apple’s iPhone Vs. Other Mobile Hardware Makers: 5 Revenue Engines Same Same, But Different: DOS Model Problems. Android developers will also have a series of other problems to manage. Like Windows Mobile, Android is intended to support everything, from BlackBerry-style keypad phones with a small touchscreen to the simple Windows Mobile Smartphone form factor lacking a touch screen to iPhone-like full size touch screens. Also like Windows Mobile, Android phone makers will have the option to leave off Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS location services, graphics hardware acceleration, and so on. Each Android phone will also have unique camera hardware, support for different video and audio codecs, and varied support for other differentiating proprietary services demanded by mobile operators. This will force developers to to make complex decisions regarding the lowest common denominator they choose to support. So while the iPhone will have a cohesive feature set, a managed software environment, and a functional market, Android will be a loose federation of hardware makers selling the same random features found on Windows Mobile today, with a chaotic development environment that lacks any central market for users or developers. And it will be run as an experiment by a company with no experience in consumer hardware or platform development. The Missing Tap. One specific example of the “DOS model problem” is that Android currently does not support multitouch. It's not touched on in the API, and Google quietly tap dances around its omission. Why no multitouch? Because multitouch screens are expensive, and most OHA hardware members are more interested in making a profit in a competitive phone market rather than impressing consumers as Apple did with the iPhone. Most existing smartphones, even those trying to directly rival the iPhone, use a stylus driven, pressure sensitive tap screen or a simpler, cheaper touch technology that lacks support for sensing multitouch. The iPhone's screen can actually sense up to five fingers at once, but the primary feature multitouch offers on the iPhone is the two fingered tapping and the pinching effects everyone associates with it. Android could certainly support multitouch if there were a demand for it, but that's the point: Google knows that its hardware partners are cheap and unlikely to put out hardware that actually competes with the iPhone. Instead of using expensive technologies that deliver clever yet largely invisible functionality, OHA members, just like PC makers, are far more likely to add flashy, impractical gadgety fluff that's cheap to tack on, such as slide out keyboards, neon tubes, and scratch and sniff stickers. That's how you impress gullible nerds on the cheap. Google itself is blowing smoke and erecting mirrors to distract from the reality that it being a “DOS vendor” means supporting bargain basement hardware from penny pinching duplicators. Android has been demonstrating some “wow” features such as a Street Maps app that pans around based on an internal compass in the demonstration phone. The problem is that that kind of thing only makes for a fun demo. Nobody needs to twirl around their phone in the air to see a view of the other side of the street, but everyone who has used an iPhone will wonder why they can't pinch to zoom out. Even worse, most Android phones aren't going to have a compass built into them, so Google is demonstrating features most Android users won't be able to use. That Sounds Like Microsoft… Google's design decisions are beginning to look a lot like Windows Vista; rather than actually working to make laptops boot faster, Microsoft came up with the idea of adding a small screen to the back of Vista laptops so users could check their email without having to wake the system up. But this was a stupid idea for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that most users just want a laptop that boots up quickly. Few laptops got the mini screen, but every user who tries Vista on their laptop will wonder why it doesn't boot up as fast as Mac OS X Leopard. In the same way, Google is advertising features for Android that most users won't ever see in their actual phones while ignoring things people will expect based on their exposure to the iPhone. Android is simply selecting the wrong features. Android will offer the advantages of supporting MMS, recording video, and the list of other features Windows Mobile already supplies. Those features didn't stop Apple from firing past Microsoft in the smartphone arena however, just as the Zune's highly touted WiFi and screen didn't phase iPod buyers. Incidentally, just months after the Zune, Apple had not only demonstrated a larger display but a higher definition multitouch screen, and not only WiFi, but functional WiFi that could be used to browse the web or check email. This suggests that Apple, with its faster release schedule, won't stay behind any of the leading features potentially offered by Android for very long. Android partners, however, will find it as difficult to catch up with Apple's unique features, just as Microsoft has been stymied to keep up with Mac OS X, the iPod, and the iPhone. The underlying reason: both Google and Microosft are tasked with maintaing support for a huge variety of hardware options demanded by all their partners. Apple has the unique circumstances to do only what it needs to do itself. Android in Windows Mobile's Shoes. Like Windows Mobile, Android faces a difficult market. In the US, it competes against the popular BlackBerry in corporate markets and the iPhone among consumers. Worldwide, it competes against entrenched market leader Nokia. The difference is that Google, unlike Microsoft, has no in. Windows Mobile was adopted by Windows-bound IT shops despite its weaknesses. Nobody has any preexisting reason to try an Android phone apart from hobbyists and open software enthusiasts, a demographic that has done little to move Linux on the PC desktop. Google also lacks Microsoft's installed base; it's starting from zero. The smartphone industry initially doubted Apple's chances of making much progress with the iPhone, despite the company having the Mac platform, the iPod, retail stores, platform development experience, marketing savvy, industrial design prowess, and so on. Google doesn't have any of those things. Mobile Providers vs Android. Apple also started with an exclusive partnership with AT&T, a three legged race that demanded effort from both. Google is hoping that hardware makers handle the hardware details and that mobile providers will be excited to sell its Android phones. While hardware makers such as HTC clearly appreciate having found a free alternative to Windows Mobile, it's not obvious why providers would be excited about Android, as it promises an openness that most mobile providers strongly oppose. AT&T took a big risk in getting behind the iPhone, as the phone encouraged users to use email rather than fee-based SMS and MMS, it supported WiFi for data access, and it bypassed AT&T's MEdia Net services to plug into iTunes instead. Verizon refused to parter with Apple and grant it those kinds of concessions. Is AT&T going to take a similar risk to partner with a phone that is not exclusive to it, and is Verizon now going to open its arms to support phones that do not exclusively support BREW, VCast and its other proprietary services? While Android may well eat into Microsoft's Windows Mobile business by stealing away its hardware makers, it seems unlikely that Android will ever serve as more than free alternative to Windows Mobile in a market where Windows Mobile is increasingly irrelevant. Android may have the dubious distinction of swallowing Microsoft's mobile business the same way Microsoft ate up the Palm OS, but even if it accomplishes that goal, Google will likely find itself unsustainably hungry immediately afterward. It will also find itself swimming in a shark tank of hungry rivals, including Nokia's Symbian, RIM's BlackBerry, and Apple's iPhone. Symbian is the final generic platform vying for the opportunity to play DOS in the smartphone market. The next article will examine Nokia's chances in its bid to match Microsoft's PC dominance in the mobile market while setting out in a new venture to copy Android's open software model. Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It's also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!
Hot Future Tech Coming to Your Mac, iPhone and iPad

Some seriously cutting-edge tech is cresting the horizon, ready to take your Apple devices and other gear to the next level of awesome. We’ve searched out the breakthroughs on the verge of becoming reality to discover how Macs, iDevices, and other tech are about to become even more impressive.�Illustrations by ArtBombersIf you’re a regular reader of Mac|Life, you know that every January we look at the fanciful future of Apple, ranging from the prototype cars to the VR goggles that might emerge from Cupertino one not-so-soon day. This is not that story. This story is about real tech that genuinely works--it’s visible on the horizon, and it could be in your Apple gear in a year or three. Think of this story as a preview of the near future.Of course, we can’t say for sure that all this technology will end up in future products (we’re good, but we’re not psychic). Some of it may never leave the lab. What you can rely on is that old standards will hit their technical limits, and progress will march on. But for a reasonable-guess preview of how Macs, iPhones, iPads, iPods, and other tech will grow, evolve, and improve in the coming years, continue reading.�The Display's the Thing�Since the original Macintosh, our screens have been passive windodws into Apple's machines. That's about to change.�3D in Your Home�Three-dimensional TV has been a glimmer in the eye of television and movie studios since House of Wax and other 3D features first popped out at audiences in the 1950s. But the gimmick never caught on, thanks in large part to clunky technology that sacrificed picture quality. As James Cameron would be happy to explain to you, times and tech have changed, and in 2010, 3D is making the jump from the big screen into our homes…and hands.Despite technological advances, the principles behind 3D haven’t changed much in 60 years. When a 3D image is displayed, two pictures of the same scene taken from different perspectives are shown. Those spiffy glasses make sure each is sent to only one eye, then our brain combines the two images into one, complete with the illusion of depth. A more mysterious part of the brain is responsible for deciding if it’s worth paying 10 bucks for popcorn at the multiplex.But really, we can’t picture Steve wearing those dorky glasses at the introduction of the iMac 3D (but when we do, it always puts us in a good mood). Simplicity is Apple’s mantra, and what’s simpler than 3D screens that do the filtering for you, providing a 3D picture while eliminating the need for special eyewear? Such screens--called autostereoscopic displays--exist today. Some are peppered by tiny lenses that direct images to each eye; others use a layer of fine slits to split the display’s light in two. One of these technologies is about to get a boost from Apple’s biggest mobile-gaming rival, Nintendo. Announced this March and due for release in spring 2011, the Nintendo 3DS will be nothing less than a shot from the House That Mario Built across Cupertino’s bow. This next-gen upgrade to the popular DS handheld will sport sophisticated dual touchscreens, motion control, and--mamma mia!--autostereoscopic 3D.Competition is another Apple mantra, and it’s no secret that Apple sees games as a big part of the success of its Multi Touch devices. Steve won’t sit still if competitors like Nintendo can gain an advantage that draws gamers away from Apple and back to the Mushroom Kingdom. If Cupertino can improve on the 3D experience offered by Nintendo’s next handheld, you can bet that App Store games--and maybe even the iPhone and iPad OS--will enter the third dimension too.�OLEDs...So Pretty!�Today we watch videos everywhere from the living room to the hotel room on our HD TVs, MacBooks, and iPads. As great as those devices are, couldn’t they all stand to have even thinner, brighter, and more energy efficient screens? Trick question--of course they could. The good news is they will, thanks to OLEDs, an acronym for organic light-emitting diodes.OLED screens aren’t grass-fed, free-range displays sold at Whole Foods, but they do use organic material (that is, material derived from the element carbon) to produce a picture. Unlike traditional LCD screens that require power-hogging backlights to project their images, OLEDs generate their own light when electricity passes through the organic polymers sandwiched between layers of film in the display. Because those layers are only about 500 nanometers thick (that’s even skinnier than a human hair) and don’t require much else besides a power source to work, OLED screens can be dramatically slimmer and lighter than conventional displays now on the market.Better still, large OLED displays are relatively easier to make than LCDs, and their gorgeous picture makes your spiffy plasma TV look like a 1950s Zenith. That’s because there’s no need to grow sheets of fragile crystals. Instead, organic molecules are sprayed onto film in a process much like inkjet printing, and that film can be transparent, flexible, or even foldable. An OLED screen’s flexibility and toughness make it suitable for use in a wide range of gadgets, most of which haven’t been invented yet. From giant HDTVs and miniaturized smartphones to futuristic heads-up displays in cars, OLEDs can potentially be incorporated into almost anything--potentially even woven into clothing. And because of their brightness, vibrant colors, and wide viewing angles, you’ll always look great in your 720p iSweatshirt Pro.But don’t camp out in front of your local Apple Store for certified-organic MacBooks or casual wear just yet. While OLED screens are popping up in more and more devices (perhaps most famously in Google’s Nexus One smartphone), the technology’s best days are yet to come. Manufacturing OLED screens is still an expensive proposition, leading to high prices and tepid consumer interest. But as OLED’s momentum builds and costs drop, expect to see a gradual shift in the computer and electronics world away from LCDs, much like the transition that phased out bulky, inefficient CRTs. And expect to see Apple jump on the OLED bandwagon when the time and money are right. With its combination of energy efficiency, size, and image quality, we think OLED has a bright future in Apple’s Macs and its growing line of sleek mobile devices.�E-Papers, Please�Popularized by e-readers like the Kindle, e-paper has plenty to offer a company focused on mobile devices. Its slim design is durable, lightweight, and legible in bright sunlight. The secret lies between the sheets--plastic sheets holding tiny wells filled with black and white particles suspended in liquid. When the wells are charged, the particles move to the screen to appear as text. No backlight is required, and because electricity is only used once to draw the contents of each page, e-paper sips power compared to the LCDs in Apple’s portable lineup. Color e-paper is so hot, you gotta wear gloves. Metaphorically speaking, that is. Photo: LG.Phillips LCD., LTD.But while e-paper does monochrome well, most of today’s e-readers use filters to colorize their black and white text with pictures--and they simply can’t compare to LCDs. That will change. Philips is working on new technology using colored particles in a process much like blending ink dots in traditional print. The results should finally make good on e-paper’s promise, but they’re still years away.Even then, will Steve subscribe to e-paper? The iPad’s LCD screen would seem to be the last word on the subject, but Apple could always use multiple displays in its devices. For instance, e-paper battery monitors could offer much more information than the little green lights they use today.�The Wireless War�If you’re like us, your living room entertainment setup is the second most precious collection of gear in your home (next to your beloved Mac, of course). Every night, you’re on the couch with a bowl of popcorn in front of an HD screen complete with a Blu-Ray player and 7.1 sound. Trouble is, that sweet setup means fistfuls of wire to fuss with. But those knots may not stay tangled much longer.As home entertainment setups get more complex, something has to give. If two competing wireless standards--WirelessHD and Wireless Home Digital Interface (WHDI)--have anything to say about it, that something will be our HDMI, DVI, and other AV cables. Both standards promise something like Wi-Fi for multimedia. Compatible devices (laptops, game consoles, and mobile phones) will use them to find your HDTV automagically over the air in a system that “just works”--and the whole idea of ditching all those cords works in a big way for us.WirelessHD devices may be available from Panasonic, LG, Vizio, and other manufacturers by the time you read this. WirelessHD delivers uncompressed video up to 1080p, multichannel audio, and other data--including Hollywood-approved DRM--at speeds up to 4Gbps, with a theoretical ceiling of 25Gbps. That’s a lot of data, but WirelessHD will only carry it up to 33 feet. The WHDI standard will move your movies as far as 100 feet, but at only up to 3Gbps. You’ll be able to compare how the two standards fare against each other when WHDI devices hit stores late this summer or early fall. Only time will tell which of these standards will be a hit with consumers or whether Apple will adopt one or play a waiting game. Let’s hope we’re not kept waiting for the release of Avatar 2 before we can stream movies, games, and more from our iPads to our televisions.» Future Apple Devices: iPad 3, iMac 3D, Cinema Display» Expected Arrival Date: 2013» You'll Also See It In: HDTVs, handheld game consoles, displays» Future Awesomeness Rating: Deeply AwesomeNext page: Printers and Processors >>Powerful Prints�Yes, print and printers have a future in our networked world. No, they won't be like anything you've seen before.�Fab It Yourself�Teleporters and matter replicators may be the stuff of science fiction, but with 3D printers, you can create physical objects with your Mac out of thin air (and a lot of plastic). Apple hasn’t sold printers since 1997, but if anything could get them back into the game, 3D printing is it.For decades, 3D printers have been used to create “rapid prototypes” for manufacturers and architects. The idea is much the same as conventional printing--you design something on your computer, and the printer produces a hard copy. But these hard copies need time to cool. 3D printers take designs built in 3D modeling programs and melt plastic to “print” them with thin strands built up layer by layer into a finished product. The idea is about to get a big boost from HP, which will begin selling 3D printers this year at “bargain” prices expected to start under $15,000. So much for 3D printing for the rest of us, right?The MakerBot prints...in 3D! Want.Not quite! If you have a techie DIY streak, 3D printing can be yours today for under $1,000. MakerBot’s compact Cupcake printer is available as a kit that, once assembled, lets you manufacture objects up to 4x4x6 inches using Lego-quality ABS plastic. The idea is catching on, and other low-cost 3D printers (like the RepRap and Desktop Factory) are poised to slowly do what HP’s high-end offerings probably won’t--make 3D printing the desktop publishing of the next decade.Of course, it will take a while for 3D printing to catch on, but if it does, expect Apple to take note. After all, our Macs have helped us make things since 1984. There’s no reason to stop now.�An Inkless Job, But Someone Has to Do It�Let’s face it, next to Mafia Wars and Farmville, printing is one of the biggest energy hogs in an office. The paper and toner cartridges required by today’s printers consume a lot of energy to use and recycle. But greener workplaces may be one step closer to reality thanks to two new inkless, reusable printing technologies that are poised to send old-fashioned hard copies sailing on a one-way trip into the wastebasket of history.Late last year, Japan’s Sanwa Newtec company introduced the PrePeat 3100 II, a compact black-and-white printer that prints using heat instead of ink. The secret’s in the “paper”--flexible, waterproof, recycled plastic that reacts to the PrePeat’s thermal mechanism. Best of all, when you don’t need a page any longer, you can just feed it back into the PrePeat to erase it or print a new document as many as 1,000 times per page. Right now this green new world will cost you (the PrePeat retails for $5,600), but expect prices to drop if the technology becomes more widely adopted.Meanwhile, researchers at Xerox are using ultraviolet light to develop a technology called Erasable Paper. The process hits specially coated paper with a specific wavelength of UV rays to print your document to the page, and you can erase and reuse a sheet whenever you need to. If that sounds like a tanning bed for interoffice communications, you’re more right than you know. Like a tan, these printouts fade away over time, and within 24 hours, a UV-printed page will be blank again. While self-destructing Mission: Impossible documents are cool (and well-suited to sharing data with short lifespans), the limitation is one reason Erasable Paper is still being refined in Xerox laboratories.» Future Apple Devices: iLife '13» Expected Arrival Date: 2013» You'll Also See It In: iLife '13» Future Awesomeness Rating: Fit To Print�Dueling Processors�Current technology can only take CPUs so far. But don't worry--tomorrow's breakthroughs are being designed today.�More Cores for Your Buck�Smaller processors offer greater speed and improved energy efficiency, but engineers racing to make the best chips possible are running afoul of the laws of physics. Conventional manufacturing methods can only make circuits so small, and even the power of Steve’s reality-distortion field can’t change that. But some amazing new technologies might.For years, multi-core technology has given us Apple chips that pack the power of multiple CPUs into a single chip. Intel’s Xeon, Core i7, and venerable Core 2 Duo processors deliver up to six cores, and eight-core machines are coming soon. We hate to break it to those processors, but a new prototype from Intel unveiled late last year promises that a lot more muscle is on the way to the Mac.Intel calls it the single-chip cloud computer (SCC), and it boasts a whopping 48 cores on one processor…with room to grow to over 100. Computers derived from the SCC will bring the brawn of today’s massive data centers (the “cloud” of the chip’s name) to desktop-sized machines, paving the way for smaller, greener clusters. Initially, Intel is planning to build only 100 of these experimental chips so engineers can figure out what to do with all that power before it lands on the market. Intel is just one of the companies now developing “many core” processors, but given its relationship with Apple, it’s a good bet that the first Mac with the power of the cloud will have Intel inside.�DNA Processors�Meanwhile, another company is taking a radically different approach to building tomorrow’s processors. Last year, researchers at IBM announced a chipmaking breakthrough that uses something called “DNA origami,” and it’s as cool as it sounds. The process arranges strands of DNA into shapes used as scaffolding for carbon nanotubes and silicon nanowires, the tiny structures that could one day move data through really, really small processors.DNA origami is a “bottom-up” approach to chipmaking that builds the chip’s circuits, as opposed to more conventional “top-down” methods that carve silicon away, and it has a promising future. DNA designs could potentially deliver chip circuits as small as 6 nanometers--that’s just dozens of atoms wide! So Apple has good reason to keep an eye on how its story unfolds. They’ll have to be patient. The technology is still evolving and likely won’t produce commercial chips for another five years at the soonest.» Future Apple Devices: MacPro Extreme» Expected Arrival Date: 2015» You'll Also See It In: Windows PCs, Skynet» Future Awesomeness Rating: Sheer GeniusNext page: New Wires and New Storage >>Magic Buses�Our future gadgets will do more wirelessly than ever before. But they'll be able to do even more with wires.�It's USB's World, We Just Live Here�Once an upstart newcomer, USB has become an elder statesman in the electronics world with a presence in almost every device on Earth. But USB’s data-transfer speeds, last boosted by USB 2.0’s introduction in 2001, haven’t aged gracefully. Thankfully, USB 3.0 is here to breathe new life into an old favorite.USB 3.0 cables definitely lose the beauty contest to Light Peak (below).At first glance, USB 3.0 (a.k.a. SuperSpeed USB) doesn’t seem like a radical departure from its predecessor, and that’s a good thing. It’s backward-compatible with USB 2.0 and even uses the same rectangular port we all know and love, so your old devices will work just fine with the new standard. So don’t worry, you won’t have to buy a new USB beverage warmer for your cubicle.But USB 3.0 brings two new tricks to the table. The first is speed--its transfer rates reach up to 5Gbps, or 10 times USB 2.0’s performance. The second is improved power management, which means reduced power consumption and more juice for devices that need it. USB 3.0 gear is already on the market, so it’s only a matter of time before Cupertino rolls out the first Macs with the SuperSpeed standard. We hope they come soon--we’ve got HD video to import!�One Wire to Rule Them All�Fiber optic cables, long used by telephone companies to connect landline phone calls, have numerous advantages over traditional copper wires. So why haven’t they made it to the desktop yet? Intel hopes to put that question to rest with a new technology called Light Peak.Light Peak is Intel’s answer to…well, just about every cable in use today. From HDMI to USB, if it carries data, Light Peak can replace it. That’s because Light Peak’s bandwidth starts at 10Gbps, and its theoretical ceiling is a whopping 100Gbps. And since Light Peak’s flexible fiber optic cables transmit light, not electricity, they can carry data up to 100 meters without a hitch. That’s plenty more meters than we need, but some room to grow can’t hurt, right?Light Peak brings fiber optic speed to computing. And pretty colors, too.However, despite a planned 2011 rollout, don’t expect to sync your 5G iPhone with Light Peak. Intel is still working out ways to combine power with Light Peak to charge devices while beaming data at warp speed. One thing’s for sure, though--when Light Peak finally strikes, it’ll be fast.» Future Apple Devices: Almost all of 'em» Expected Arrival Date: 2011» You'll Also See It In: Every gadget on Earth» Future Awesomeness Rating: Blazing Hot�Reading, Writing, Revolutionary�Say goodbye to your old drives. Say hello to a new world of speedy storage.�It's RAM! It's a Hard Drive! It's Both!�There’s nothing New Age about “universal memory,” but it could usher in a new age of computers and electronic devices. Universal memory is any next-gen storage that combines the speed and affordability of today’s DRAM with the permanence and capacity of flash memory. Two technologies are fighting to rewrite the rules, and the winner may be coming to the Mac sooner than you think.Phase-change memory (PCM) gets our vote, if only for its cool name, which is derived from the use of chalcogenide glass that changes from a crystalline to an amorphous state with heat. It’s the same material used to make rewritable optical discs, but in PCM, the two states represent different electrical charges, or a zero and a one. PCM represents a major leap in durability over flash memory, and can be written to up to 100 million times versus flash’s upper limit of just 100,000 read-write cycles. Samsung has already begun producing 512MB PCM modules for use in mobile phones, but 1GB modules are still on the way. Looks like phase-change doesn’t happen overnight.The race for better memory is run on a tiny field, though, and IBM’s racetrack memory may have the inside track. It uses something called spintronics--don’t you want to hear Steve say that at a keynote?--to manipulate electrons into moving magnetic bits down nanoscopic, U-shaped “racetracks” to read and write data at blazing speed. Yet racetrack memory’s biggest asset may be its scalability, theoretically allowing HDD-size capacity to be squeezed into a much smaller area than competing technologies allow. But until racetrack memory is ready to leave IBM’s labs, this dark-horse contender will be one to watch, not buy.�Kind of Blu�Steve famously quipped that bringing Blu-Ray to the Mac was “a bag of hurt,” but Sony’s multimedia power-platter is still rolling along after years of Cupertino’s cold shoulder. Movie lovers--and anyone who wants to share giant files--can take comfort that when Blu-Ray finally arrives on Macs, it’ll be better than ever. Having long shed its 25GB limit, Blu now boasts capacities of up to 400GB, and 1TB discs are coming in just a few years. The promise of this year’s 3D Blu-Ray players is just one more feature that will keep Mac fans gazing longingly--sigh--at Big Blu’s bag of tricks.» Future Apple Devices: MacBook nano, Apple TV Blu» Expected Arrival Date: 2013» You'll Also See It In: Smartphones, PCs» Future Awesomeness Rating: Memorably CoolNext page: Networking, Power, and Interaction >>Network It Out�Tomorrow's wireless communications will be more important than ever. Good thing our networks will be able to keep up.�4G or Not 4G?�Poor AT&T. Just as it’s getting the hang of supporting the iPhone on its 3G network, 4G networks will begin popping up from Sprint this year and from archrival Verizon in 2011. What does that mean for us, besides catty PR fights among the carriers? A blazing fast mobile internet with enough bandwidth for HD movies, video chats, and--we hope--fewer dropped calls.Like 3G wireless networks, 4G isn’t a single new technology. It’s a blanket term for a range of technologies and specifications that add up to the same thing: speed. Current 3G offers downloads of roughly 1.4Mbps. Compare that to 4G’s promised bandwidth of at least 100Mbps, and you’ll see what the fuss is about. 4G works its magic in part by using MIMO (Multiple In Multiple Out) technology to broadcast using several antennas simultaneously on multiple frequencies.4G’s strengths make its eventual adoption by Apple a no-brainer, no matter which carrier has the iPhone next year. Apple is serious about establishing the iPad as a mobile media device, and it’ll want a big pipe to carry movies and music to cellular customers. That’s just what 4G provides. As for the iPhone, who knows? Steve may decide to stick with AT&T and its 4G network expected to roll out alongside Verizon’s in 2011.�Crank Up the 802.11AC�Closer to home, we’ll use 802.11n Wi-Fi, but at faster speeds than we’ve seen before. Apple has sold 802.11n devices since 2007, but the protocol’s final standard was only approved in 2009. Happily, that means the business of making Wi-Fi as fast as possible can begin in earnest. Like 4G, 802.11n uses MIMO to improve performance, but manufacturers couldn’t take full advantage of the technology before the protocol was complete. Now that it is, devices can officially support maximum speeds between 400 and 600Mbps…if your hardware has the antennas to deliver the boost. Expect that hardware to start arriving in stores later this year.But the Mac life is never a simple march of progress, and there’s always something new on the horizon. Sweet! Work drafting the next Wi-Fi protocol, 802.11ac, has already begun. Devices supporting the new standard aren’t expected until 2012 at the earliest, but they’ll boast speeds of up to 1Gbps when they’re available. At press time, Ethernet’s agent was unavailable for comment.» Future Apple Devices: 2G iPad, Airport Express Plus» Expected Arrival Date: 2011» You'll Also See It In: Smartphones, netbooks» Future Awesomeness Rating: Wildly Wireless�More Power to You�Apple is going power mad. Its future devices will charge up almost anywhere.�Powered by the Sun�Solar power is overdue for a makeover, and if anyone can do it, it’s Apple. In 2008, it applied for a patent to slip solar cells beneath a device’s LCD screen, and early this year, it applied for another patent to cover portable devices with solar collectors.Solar-powered MacBooks? Yes please!�Wilder still, a March 2010 patent describes a MacBook with a solar panel that folds to collect sunlight or even to illuminate the LCD screen without drawing power from the battery. We’re still waiting for these designs to see the light of day--ha!--but it’s clear someone at Apple has spent a lot of time looking at the sun.�Go Wireless�Besides flying cars, wireless electricity is the ultimate in futuristic convenience. Today’s charging mats come close, but the magnetic induction they use keeps devices tethered to one spot. That’s why we hope Apple adopts WiTricity’s technology for truly wireless power up to several feet away from the base station. The science involved would baffle the DHARMA Initiative, but it involves something called sharply resonant strong coupling to generate an oscillating magnetic field that’s captured and converted to electricity by a sensor in your device. Or it will, anyway, when WiTricity-powered gear reaches stores sometime in the future.Wireless power? As in, electricity beamed through the air? Shocking.» Future Apple Devices: iPod solar, ElectroMagneto MacPro» Expected Arrival Date: 2015» You'll Also See It In: Nice weather, mad scientists' lairs» Future Awesomeness Rating: Simply Electrifying�Your Valuable Input�No matter how cool Apple’s upcoming products are, they’ll only be as good as what we can do with them. Here’s how we’ll interact with the future.�Touchier Mice�The mouse has plenty of life left, at least according to Microsoft. It’s produced some stellar mice over the years, but Redmond’s recent Multi Touch prototypes could be the best yet. The FTIR (Frustrated Total Internal Reflection) Mouse’s high-res camera tracks finger gestures through a curved piece of clear acrylic so you can scroll, swipe, and pinch around on the acrylic in order to manipulate onscreen objects. The Orb Mouse works on much the same principle, but offers a whole hemisphere to interact with in your hand.The shrunken Side Mouse looks more like a wrist rest than a traditional rodent--its tiny camera tracks your fingers as they move across your desk or whatever surface you happen to be working on. Best of all, these mice incorporate the Multi Touch equivalent of keyboard shortcuts to perform zooms and other common commands quickly. Cupertino, start your copiers!Microsoft's FTIR Mouse makes magic out of a high-res camera and a piece of acrylic that together create Multi Touch-style input.But the coolest input technology on the horizon for Apple’s gear lies in--big surprise--touchscreens. Future Multi Touch devices will sport haptic feedback, or the sort of physical response you’ve gotten for years from vibrating gamepads and cell phones, to help make input feel more natural. In 2011, Artificial Muscle is bringing to market its EPAM (Electroactive Polymer Artificial Muscle) technology, which tenses and relaxes touchscreens in response to input. That sounds pretty fascinating all by its lonesome, but Apple’s recent patent applications show it has something more subtle in mind--a layer inside the touchscreen that delivers vibrating feedback localized to specific onscreen buttons and switches. That level of fine-tuned feedback would make typing on the iPad’s large screen even more satisfying and could pave the way for MacBooks without physical keyboards.» Future Apple Devices: Majestic Mouse, MacBook Touch» Expected Arrival Date: 2012» You'll Also See It In: Microsoft's mice» Future Awesomeness Rating: Terrifically TactileNext page: Too Wild for Apple? >>Too Wild for Apple?�Some of these technologies may seem out there even for Apple, but yes--chuckles aside--they’re real. Besides, today’s head-scratchers could be tomorrow’s game-changers. Maybe.�Huff and Puff into the Mic�You’ve finally gotten your mind around Multi Touch, but are you ready for Multi Puff? Zyxio’s Sensawaft technology lets you control a mouse cursor, scroll through text, or do just about anything else with your electronic devices using only your breath. The assistive possibilities for disabled users are obvious and awesome, but breath control could have other, less practical uses, too. Imagine blowing into your earbuds’ microphone to control music playback, skipping an annoying voicemail with a hiss, or puffing on your iPhone to zoom in for a kill while playing your favorite shooter. Apple’s engineers could do so much with this, it’s breathtaking.�Keep Your Finger on the Pulse�An iPhone fingerprint scanner makes a lot of sense, especially considering that Apple has so many intriguing patents out on the idea. Sure, a fingerprint-savvy screen would simplify security--and make “slide to unlock” really mean something--but we like to think about the possibilities for everyday iPhone control hinted at in Apple’s patents. With the iPhone of tomorrow, specific fingers could be used for certain functions, letting you change settings without even looking at the screen. You could use your thumbprint to play a song, your index-finger print to rewind, and your middle-finger print to...er…emphatically skip a song for those tunes so bad that a one-star rating just doesn’t cut it.You might not be able to remember a passcode that unlocks your iPhone, but we're betting you'll be able to remember your fingerprint.�Project Your Ideas�Pico projectors--low-power, handheld projectors--are handy for quickie presentations or impromptu slideshows with the family. Some of them even project with RGB lasers instead of white light for a picture that’s always in focus. But the image of these mini projectors will really improve if Apple ever makes good on recent patents to integrate them into MacBooks and iPhones. Sure, you could strike up a Keynote presentation on the go with a MacBook Pico, but throwing up movies, music, iTunes visualizations, and photo albums anywhere sounds like a lot more fun.�Wii Want Our Apple TV�Motion control brought gamers flocking to the Nintendo Wii, but can it do the same for Apple TV? Someone in Cupertino must think so, judging by a patent for a Wii-like motion-controlled remote to go with Cupertino’s set-top box. Sounds good to us. Apple’s Remote iPhone app is great, but it’s always seemed very “un-Apple” to require another device to deliver a satisfying Apple TV experience. Motion control--especially with the enhanced precision and reliability brought by the floating magnetic compass noted in Apple’s patent--would be a slick solution, and not just for easier navigation. Apple’s patent also describes using the remote to draw on the screen and manipulate photos with the flick of a wrist. That could give Steve’s favorite hobby product some much-needed pizzazz to help it catch the public’s eye. After all, the day will come when Cupertino will update the Apple TV again, and when it finally does, you may not even recognize it. What can we say? We want to see the little guy make good.Next page: Patently Awesome >>Patently Awesome�Apple’s patents are tea leaves that portend what technology’s cutting edge will look like for years to come. Here are some of tomorrow’s ideas Cupertino thinks are worth protecting today.�Nine Lives, Three Dimensions�OS X is the big cat that makes Cupertino’s products tick, but it’s Apple’s hardware that usually captures the public’s attention. That oversight will finally be corrected if a patent for 3D OS X becomes a reality.The 3D in question depends on parallax, the effect by which objects appear to change their position relative to each other as a viewer’s perspective changes. By keeping tabs on your position (likely with a head tracking iSight camera), this “OS parallaX” would alter the appearance of onscreen objects to form a simulated 3D space in which you could interact with files, study 3D objects, and more. While this could open up exciting new ways to use your Mac, it would also require complex new hardware and software, so don’t count on peeking behind alert boxes anytime soon.�An iPhone Gamepad�Judging by a recent patent, the iPhone and iPod touch might have more than just high-tech improvements in their future. Thanks to a unique accessory, someday soon we may be gaming old-school--with a twist--on our Multi Touch devices.In a few years, near field communication will let your iPhone be the boss of your videogame console, TV, and even your sprinkler.We love playing games on the iPhone, but sometimes we pine for the 20th century simplicity of physical controls. Call Apple’s potential solution the “GameFrame,” a shell that fits around your iPhone to add a D-pad, buttons, and other handy moving parts to the iPhone experience. Too old-fashioned for you? The device could also communicate wirelessly with HDTVs, opening the door to big-screen App Store gaming on the go. Hero of Sparta 3 on a 40-inch flatscreen? We’re so there!�"Home Screen" Gets a New Meaning�The iPhone’s superpowers seem to be growing by the day, but you haven’t seen anything yet. In the future, you won’t think twice about using it to lock the door, turn on the lights, and even water the lawn of your personal fortress of solitude.Apple’s recent home-control patent hinges on a technology called near field communication (NFC), a short-range wireless technology that’s slower than Bluetooth while offering a much quicker pairing time. That’s just the thing to control the Xbox, DVD player, and garden-sprinkler system shown in the patent application. Unfortunately, this remote-control magic requires NFC-enabled devices that are, like the iPhone that will interact with them, years away.�Slice the Mac into Pieces�To create, sometimes you must destroy, and the most intriguing Apple patent we’ve come across yet takes apart the familiar Mac we’ve used for decades and scatters it into…well, something else. We’re not sure if what it describes is a portable computer, a desktop machine, or something in between, but we call it the “MultiMac.” And we want one.The "MultiMac" splits a Mac into its component parts, which live where you'll use them.If it was built today, MultiMac’s components--a projector display, input devices, and a CPU--would be separate components, each powered wirelessly and communicating with each other over the air from wherever you wanted them to be. You could tuck the CPU on a bookshelf, surf from the couch, and project a movie on the wall as if using one device. Apple’s focus (pardon the pun) seems to be on the projector, which would do more than just show vacation pictures. The patent describes it as a networked device with multiple sensors controlling focus, color, or even built-in cameras. What are the chances those cameras could power a 3D OS X? Hey, we can dream.Will MultiMac be a novel new computer that ties together exciting new technology, a sophisticated Keynote presentation system, or a hub to synchronize a home full of mobile devices? We’re not sure, but that’s half the fun of being a Mac fan. Only Apple knows what’s coming next, and they’re not telling…yet.�
Why Dan Frommer and Scott Moritz Are Wrong on iPhone Sales

Daniel Eran DilgerSilicon Alley Insider's Dan Frommer says Apple's announcement of reaching its million mark goal in iPhone sales three weeks early is actually bad news for Apple and is convolutedly "below plan." He also says the announcement only props up the speculative conjecture by Scott Moritz of the Street that Apple's iPhones sales are somehow woefully below expectations. They're wrong, here's why.The PremiseFrommer wrote that Apple isn't selling iPhones as fast as planned and is set to only sell around half of its 2008 goal.His premise revolves around the idea that if Apple were selling iPhones at "a constant rate," a million phones in 74 days would be five million per year. However, because it sold over a quarter of those in the opening day and a half at the end of June, Frommer calculates that sales of the remainder in the 72 days since the first of July mean that Apple is only hitting a "3.6 million annual run rate."By the end of 2008, that would only result in 5.8 million units instead of the ten million goal Apple. [Silicon Alley Insider: Apple's iPhone: 1 Million Is Below Plan]Strike One: The Run Rate Myth.The most obvious problem with that idea is the fact that devices don't sell at a constant “run rate." Apple's iPhone sales took off at launch much faster than the original iPod due to the fact that a swell of early adopters were ready to buy it after being convinced over six months of anticipation. At the same time, many potential buyers held off on plans to buy the iPhone until they could read reviews and get a real sense of how it worked. Many were also locked into contracts with Verizon or Sprint. With only six months of advanced notice, it will still be a few more months before the majority of buyers who want an iPhone even get the chance to buy one without having to pay outrageous fees to cancel their existing mobile contract. iPhone sales are also now taking on the network effect of the iPod, as early adopters show their friends. All these factors have difficult to estimate impacts upon sales that make trying to figure a static “run rate�? a very simplistic and pointless exercise.However, there is another factor that simply blows the entire idea of a static “run rate�? out of the water. Last November, I predicted that sales of the Zune would bomb that winter because Microsoft had failed to critically examine Apple's historical sales patterns. Sure enough, the Zune was thrown against the rocks by Apple's riptide. Frommer's idea ignores that same reality by imagining that iPhone sales will schlep along at a linear pace. Had Frommer tried to calculate an "annual run rate" for the iPod based on a portion of third quarter sales at any point over the last half decade, he would never have been close to accurate. That’s because Apple’s iPod sales roughly triple every winter quarter.In 2002, it sold nearly as many iPods in its winter quarter as it did the first three quarters combined: 219,000In 2003, it actually sold more iPods in its winter quarter than in the first three combined: 733,000In 2004, it again sold more iPods in its winter quarter than in the first three: 4,580,000In 2005, it sold more than 4 million units every quarter, but still sold nearly three times as many in the winter: 14,480,000.In 2006, it sold more than 8 million units every quarter, and then sold over 21 million in the winter quarter.In 2007, it has maintained quarterly sales between 10.5 and 9.8 million per quarter.[Strike 3: Why Zune will Bomb this Winter]Strike Two: The Have it Both Ways Myth.One particularly annoying bit of analysts' talk about Apple's expectations is that they can't seem to decide if Apple's projections are bad because they are conservative lowballs, or if they are bad for being overly enthusiastic figures the company won't be able to reach. They often try to describe them as both, loading contempt on both sides of the scale. This makes them look very foolish. Do they think we have no memory, or are they just changing their stories back and forth in sheer desperation?Frommer tried to argue both sides at once in the same article. Recall that Apple only ever gave two iPhone sales goals: one million by the end of the first quarter of sales, and ten million by the end of 2008. In his piece, Frommer suggests Apple will only be able to sell 5.8 million iPhones by the end of 2008, based on that fallacious "run rate." That would be just over half of Apple's ten million goal. However, he then says that Apple's immediate short term goal was an unimpressive low ball, no doubt because Apple reached it three weeks early.Apple's stated goals must be a greatly frustrating logical conundrum for Frommer, because even at a “run rate" of one million in a quarter, Apple could only ever hope to sell six million iPhones by the end of 2008, another five quarters later. No wonder he's faced with trying to say that the immediate goal was too low and the longer term one is too high! Frommer needs to stop trying to pound round facts into square holes just so they can be stacked up like bricks the way he would like them to be.Strike Three: The Market Bearing Price Myth.While Frommer and Moritz are enamored with the idea that iPhone prices could only be cut if sales were in crisis, a variety of obvious market realities don't support that simpleton idea. Between now and the end of 2008, Apple has just two holiday seasons. If it wants to dramatically exploit its historical potential for selling roughly three times as many gadgets during the winter season, it makes sense to trade off unit pricing for volume sales, even if it could perhaps sell fewer at a higher price and make more short term profits doing so.Such a strategy isn't unique. Microsoft and Sony currently lose money on their new game consoles in desperate bids to establish their gaming and HD video playing platforms. Even so, this year they both cut prices again to accelerate volume demand. Nintendo purposely aimed low to capture volume sales using a more attractive price point. Given high demand for the Wii and extremely constrained availability, Nintendo "should" seemingly raise its console price and profiteer. It hasn't. While prices are clearly linked to demand, it is a common fallacy to think that the "right price" is always the highest the market will bear. Jobs' 99 cent pricing in the iTunes store is clearly not the top price consumers will pay for downloads. Music labels are fuming that other licensees such as Verizon will collect $2.50 or more for portions of a song sold as a ringtone. Jobs wants media prices low to induce volume sales and attract buyers to the legitimate market for music and movie downloads. Labels and studios want "market pricing," in part so they can jack up the price of popular music to exploit consumers, and in part so they can exploit artists by threatening to release their work at lower tiered prices and signal to the market that their careers are over.[Universal vs Apple in the iTunes Store Contracts][Nintendo Wii vs Microsoft Xbox 360 and Sony PS3]This All Happened Before.Dial back the clock twenty years, and you'll discover that Steve Jobs also fought with Apple CEO John Sculley over the price of the original Macintosh. The desire to use an expensive but pioneering amount of RAM and a futuristic new processor had inflated the price of the Mac, but the design team was still able to deliver it at a fairly attractive price point of $1,995. Scully determined that the Mac would still sell at $2495, delivering high profits to fund splashy advertising. Nothing on the market was really similar to the Mac apart from Apple's $9,995 Lisa. VisiOn for the PC similarly cost nearly $10,000 and did far less. Sculley thought that the market would bear anything Apple might charge. Andy Hertzfeld recalled on Folklore.org that in October 1983, "Steve Jobs strode into the software area one evening, looking angry. 'You're not going to like this,' he told us, 'but Sculley is insisting that we charge $2495 for the Mac instead of $1995, and use the extra money for a bigger marketing budget. He figures that the early adopters will buy it no matter what the price. He also wants more of a cushion to protect Apple II sales. But don't worry, I'm not going to let him get away with it!'"Jobs fought Sculley over the price increase, but Sculley prevailed. Sure enough, Macs did sell well out of the gate to early adopters at the higher price, but sales then began to stall. While Jobs couldn't cut the price for the original Mac to induce wider adoption in the mid 80s, he could choose to cut the price of the iPhone early and use interest in the iPod Touch to ramp users toward the iPhone. That price cut will dramatically boost sales this winter, just as iPod price cuts and feature refreshes do every year.Apple will earn less profit on individual hardware sales of the iPhone, and may even earn slightly less money overall this quarter than it might have selling the iPhone at $599. However, a $399 iPhone will dramatically boost the company's sustainable subscriber revenues and devastatingly cut into stationary rivals like Palm and the Windows Mobile licensees, giving them little opportunity retool and strike back with copycat products. [Price Fight - Folklore.org][Office Wars 3 - How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly]Strike Four: The Myth of Unlimited Availability.Another problem with idea that iPhone sales were in crisis--and that a price cut is a conspiracy to hide the truth--is that Apple sold out of iPhones in many of its retail stores throughout the first three weeks on sale.Carl Howe of Blackfriar's Communications tracked iPhone availability every day through July, and then animated the results in a movie that depicts just how constrained iPhone inventories in Apple's retail stores were. So not only did Apple meet its 94 day goal 20 days early, but it did so despite having no or few iPhones to sell in many of its stores during the first 21 days. Price isn't just related to demand, but also to supply.That also demonstrates the fallacy of Scott Moritz' assertion that Apple secretly planned to sell a million iPhones in a day and a half, and was sorely disappointed after failing to do so. How could Apple have planned on selling a million units in one day when it didn't even have a million units on the shelves of its stores during the first month? Remember, Moritz wasn't saying Apple had a delivery problem in getting enough units to stores as Nintendo is experiencing with its constrained supplies of the Wii. Instead, he tried to suggest that interest in the iPhone was far below Apple's estimates, and buyers were leaving it on the shelf like Windows Vista. The result, he claimed, was that "rivals were rejoicing."The only real rejoicing by rivals was that Moritz was volunteering to repeat the talking points handed to him by Verizon shill Roger Entner of IAG Research. Just hours before Apple announced it had sold a million units, Moritz tried to get some traction out of the idea that Apple had dropped the price in desperation to find another half million or so customers over the next three weeks. Apple isn't the typical tech company being run by visionless bean counters. It it were, it would have continued selling $600 iPhones at least through the end of September and then announced that it had sold its million. Apple had to push out new iPods in early September and fit the iPhone into the price range because next month it will be rolling out Leopard and a series of new software updates. Apple feeds the press in small, consistent, and regular feedings so reporters know what to write. If Apple were a big stupid company such as, say HP, it would parade out a mix of dozens of consumer and business products all together in one big event, and nobody would ever hear about any of it. HP did.[Why a million iPhones in 74 days is better than you think- Blackfriars][HP's marketing this week: fashionable but ineffective - Blackfriars][Unraveling Anti-Apple Panic: the iPhone Launch Success] [More on Scott Moritz and the Jim Cramer Misinformation Engine]Strike Five: It's Too Late to Deny the iPhone.The most comical part of Frommers’ analysis is that he’s trying to stuff a cat back into a bag and explain that there was never really any cat, long after everyone in the room heard the purr and pet the thing. Sorry, but the windows of opportunity to doubt the iPhone have long since closed.Real Windows Enthusiasts were aware of the need to deny the iPhone well before its release. They all chimed in with reasons why the iPhone wouldn't work, wouldn't offer what consumers want, and wouldn't sell well, all hoping that their non-stop misinformation campaigns would act as a self-fulfilling prophesy. They failed miserably.John Dvorak began his smear campaign immediately, appearing on CNBC to say that the iPhone was "trending against what people are really liking in phones nowadays, which are those little keypads.�? He explained, “The BlackJack, the Samsung, the BlackBerry obviously pushes this kind of thing. The Palm, all of these. I guess some of these stocks went down on the Apple announcement, thinking that Apple could do no wrong. But I think Apple can do wrong, and I think this is it." Reader Jim Barrow sent in a link to a MarketWatch article from March, where Dvorak scribed a rambling diatribe entitled "Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone." He offered no factual basis for worrying that the iPhone might not work out apart from the offhanded comment that "there is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in a business this competitive," words which echoed Dvorak's 1984 observation that "the Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things."In April, Dvorak inflamed his 'pull the plug' rhetoric further in a TWiT podcast, where he reported to an audience of hundreds of thousands that the iPhone only delivered "40 minutes of talk time" and "the interface fouls up constantly.�? Dvorak said that his inside information on the iPhone came from a "guy at Cingular who’s testing the product," adding, "he’s telling me confidentially and I shouldn’t be telling anybody."[John Dvorak: How Wrong Can One Guy Be?][Readers Write: Don't Write About John Dvorak Anymore]It'll Be the Death of You.Dvorak was joined by Rob Enderle, who called the iPhone “damned�? and “not a very good phone�? at every opportunity in the months before its launch, despite not really knowing anything about it, or even ever offering any rational criticism. Instead, Enderle appealed to fantasy fears of sexual assault, murder, and the violent death of children, all of which he suggested might somehow be related to the iPhone. Unaware that a password protected iPhone--or even a unauthorized unit without a configured service plan--can still be used to make emergency phone calls, Enderle wrote about, "an emergency situation where, say, a woman was being raped and couldn’t call for help because she didn’t remember her iPhone password." As I understand, with a Windows Mobile phone, even if the unit crashed while trying to place the call, at least the victim could use it like a brick as a blunt weapon. Enderle also feared that being unable to take out the battery would somehow making recharging it impossible, resulting an a scenario where one might end up on “the wrong side of town�? with a dead iPhone and be murdered because of it. Being on the wrong side of town was apparently the source of most murders prior to the arrival of the cell phone, which somehow made it safe to be in bad neighborhoods. For those who unfazed by the prospect of one's own own grizzly death in relation to the iPhone, Enderle appealed to his readers to please think of the children, particularly the potential for their brutal decapitation in an iPhone-related collision. "If you are buying this phone for a child or another member of your family," Enderle warned, "please emphasize that entering data on this phone while driving is dangerous." In contrast, operating the slide out keyboards of an HTC brick phone, or using both hands to thumb type on a BlackBerry may or may not save your children as they drive off an embankment, but at least you'll know they didn't die at the hands of Apple's "damned" iPhone.[SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1970s][Mac OS X vs Linux: Third Party Software and Security]Pure Concentrated Evil with a Multitouch Screen.Brian Lam of Gizmodo published an impassioned plea to boycott the iPhone shortly before its launch, due to the fact that Cingular had purchased the AT&T name, a brand Gizmodo's writer correlated with "monopoly tactics" in the late 70s. Gizmodo hasn't ever called for the boycotting of Verizon Wireless, which is well known for its anti-consumer tactics and which shares just as much blood with the old AT&T as its Baby Bell sibling Cingular, nor has it ever urged the boycott Microsoft products due to "monopoly tactics." Gizmodo also failed to boycott any other GSM phones that are tied to AT&T.Gizmodo's Lam and Enderle then teamed up with Slate's David Sessions in an article purporting to expose Apple's rated battery life for the iPhone. Sessions complained about the attention the iPhone was getting, and tried to dismiss Apple's announcement of a two fold increase in battery life over what was originally advertised. Unbelievably, Sessions and friends could only explain away the iPhone's jump in talk time by crediting its glass screen, saying that "glass transmits light more efficiently than plastic." That and some witchcraft.However, all of these individuals sharply reduced their squirt rate of false information after the iPhone's successful launch. In day and a half, Apple sold 270,000 iPhones compared to the 500,000 Palm OS Treos, 1.03 million RIM BlackBerrys, and 1.51 million Windows Mobile phones that were sold worldwide in the first 90 days of 2007.Apple has since nearly matched highflying RIM in sales during July, despite being limited to a single carrier and only offered for sale in the US. At this point, denying the iPhone is like saying the Earth is flat. It might be fun to do at a Renaissance Faire, but pretending to seriously doubt reality is not a good career move unless you work for the Street--or perhaps Rupert Murdoch, as Dvorak does.[Secret iPhone Details Lost in a Sea of Hype and Hate][iPhone Sales vs Zune, Palm, RIM, Symbian, Windows Mobile]And Now: a Warning.Let it be known that anyone who publishes further misinformation or blows out similar inanity will risk being instantly awarded a Zoon on the spot. No complicated voting, no tedious application process. New Zoon nominees will be rubber stamped with the same effortless fast tracking as the ECMA declaring Microsoft technology as an international standard.In fact, I’m going to totally Zoon Dan Frommer and Scott Moritz right now, as well as John Dvorak, Rob Enderle, Brian Lam, David Sessions, and even Roger Entner. And John Sculley. And while I’m handing out an intellectual property construct that costs me nothing to distribute, I will also award Steve Jobs with a Zoon for the whole two month “just kidding�? iPhone pricing situation, although I might take half of it back if I get a $100 coupon that doesn’t force me to spend $500 to actually use it. So let that be a warning to you out there on the Tubes thinking about how to linkbait an article at the expense of the progress of technology. I have a rapid firing gun full of Zoons and I’m not shy about cranking them out. Be sure to post any nominees.What do you think? I really like to hear from readers. Comment in the Forum or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast! Submit to Reddit or Slashdot, or consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!
15 Things We Might See at WWDC 2010

�After search giant Google hurled a barrage of not-so-subtle spears in Apple’s direction at the Google I/O developer conference, all eyes are now on the World Wide Developer Conference that Cupertino will be launching June 7 with a keynote from CEO Steve Jobs.While a fourth-generation iPhone is a given at this point after an absurd number of leaks in recent weeks, Apple CEO Steve Jobs himself promised an inquisitive e-mailer only a few days ago: “You won’t be disappointed.” So we put our thinking cap on and came up with this list of cool stuff we might see when WWDC 2010 kicks off June 7 and wraps up on June 11.Safari 5 (or maybe 4.5)We think Safari is still pretty great, even against more recent challengs from Google Chrome and Firefox 3.6. But with the Chrome browser finally out of beta this week, Apple may have to work harder to pound out Safari’s remaining limitations.Among them: No API for extensions, as noted this week by Daring Fireball’s own John Gruber after Google’s announcement that Chrome is now officially “stable.” That means that great third-party software like 1Password and Evernote has to resort to kludgy hacks to work intimately with Safari. Heck, even good ol’ Adobe Flash might work better with an API (stranger things have happened). Gruber also calls out Apple for not empowering Safari with a true ability to automatically reopen pages left open when the app was closed. Yes, please.New Mac Pros -- Finally!The poor Mac Pro has certainly gone neglected, with its last update more than a year ago. Worse yet, the desktop behemoth still carries a form factor borrowed from the Power Mac G5 before it -- and in computer years, that makes it a veritable dinosaur.Although we’ve heard plenty of rumors about Intel’s new six-core Core i7-980X processor landing in a refreshed Mac Pro as far back as January and February of this year, the summer has arrived and there’s still nothing official on the radar. Creative professionals are likely worried about Apple’s silence with regard to such new hardware, but that could all change with one presentation.Mac OS X 10.7Many developers are also rightfully worried that this year’s WWDC is too focused on iPhone OS, and many questions remain as to when Apple might shed some light on their intentions for Mac OS X 10.7. Granted, Snow Leopard 10.6 was released only last September, but that update was more about optimizing Leopard 10.5 than adding hot new features to the Mac (unless you count getting back a bunch of hard drive space as a “hot” new feature).Our prediction is that Mac OS X 10.7 will get at least a cursory mention at WWDC 2010, and we won’t get a real preview of a new desktop operating system until WWDC 2011. Thankfully, Snow Leopard 10.6 runs like smooth, creamy butter most of the time -- and Apple keeps the updates coming regular enough to squash anything that comes up, with a 10.6.4 patch already in beta testing.iPhone OS 4.0 for iPadWe’ve already seen all of the cool stuff that’s presumably coming next month with iPhone OS 4.0, such as Folders, multitasking and threaded e-mail. But we were bummed to hear that the fresh new iPad won’t get the 4.0 love until sometime this fall, by which time Apple will likely be on 4.1 or so.Here’s hoping that Apple will give us at least a peek at iPhone OS 4.x for the iPad at WWDC -- after all, developers will certainly appreciate a longer lead time to rework their apps for the tablet device after having to rush them together between late January and early April for the U.S. iPad launch. The rest of us will just have to wait… and weep.The Real Apple TV Take 2Remember back in January, 2008 when Apple took the wraps off “Take 2” of its “still a hobby” Apple TV? Despite a price drop, closer ties with iTunes and the ability to purchase content directly from the box itself, the Apple TV has continued to bore most everyone who sees it, except for the die-hard hackers who continue to squeeze as much as possible out of the device’s anemic processor and (gasp!) Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger operating system by way of unsanctioned apps like nitoTV and Boxee.We figure the time has come for a truly revolutionary overhaul of Apple TV, especially now that arch-nemesis Google is breathing down Apple’s neck with Google TV, slated for release this fall. Rumors abound that Apple TV may get iPhone OS-ified and will adopt the tiny A4 architecture that will come standard in the next iPhone. Additionally, the new Apple TV will have 1080p HD and 16GB of storage, as well as be a part of Apple's rumored new cloud storage network. The best part about these rumors is that the device is slated to sell for only $99, which will make die hard Apple fans with a tight budget extremely happy. MobileMe: Now With More Free!Recent rumors have speculated that Apple may take a cue from Google and start offering their cloud-based MobileMe service absolutely free to all users. While that would no doubt raise the ire of longtime .Mac users who have paid good money each year to stay with the often-questionable service, it’s really the only recourse Apple may have to keep up with Google now.MobileMe itself isn’t spectacular as it exists now, save for its awesome push e-mail, Find My iPhone, contacts and calendars. The recent web-based Mail beta shows that Apple is taking baby steps toward improving the service, but they’ve got a long ways to go yet. Let’s see that acquisition of Lala start moving iTunes into the cloud, for instance, and speaking of that...iTunes in the CloudSince Apple purchased Lala.com, pundits have been short-circuiting their craniums trying to guess exactly what Cupertino plans to do with the technology -- and equally as important, when that fateful day might arrive. We’re not so sold on the idea of having iTunes “in the cloud” -- call us old fashioned, but it’s kind of nice to actually feel like you own your music, especially now that it’s finally DRM-free.Be that as it may, Apple now appears late to the cloud-based music game, with Google stepping up to the plate to make Android such a cloud-centric experience. We’re not sure that WWDC is the right forum to finally reveal what the company is doing with Lala’s brains, but surely Apple will have to play their hand soon enough.NEXT: iPhones, iTunes and the MacBook Air>>��A Fourth-Generation iPhone No One is ExpectingWhat if Steve Jobs got on stage for his keynote on June 7 and presented an iPhone that was totally different from what Gizmodo and others have leaked? A new report this week from Digitimes has posed just such a possibility, and proposes that the project, codenamed “N91” -- the leaked iPhone we’ve already seen is “N90” -- may exist as “a parallel product to back up the N90 in case there are major delays due to significant modifications in casing, display resolution, digital camera support and so forth.” The report goes on to describe the backup product as more similar in style and form to the existing iPhone 3GS.�At this point, everyone is expecting the leaked iPhone (which has been dubbed “iPhone HD” by pundits) to allow some kind of video chatting thanks to the widely exposed leaks of the device with a front-facing camera. Would you be disappointed to see the equivalent of an “iPhone 3GS Plus” at this point? We would...Final Cut Studio 4Sure, we know that the third generation of Final Cut Studio was only released last year, but the update offered little in the way of new features and seemed to take away more than it gave (especially for PowerPC owners, who are now permanently relegated to Final Cut Studio 2, as the newest version requires an Intel processor). The biggest problem with Apple’s pro video suite is that, despite the big 64-bit push with Snow Leopard 10.6, none of Final Cut Studio is 64-bit native -- and those applications could use it.It might be out of character for Apple to unveil a new Final Cut Studio at WWDC, but given the recent hysteria among video professionals upon hearing rumors that the high-end software might be “dumbed down” to make it more consumer-centric, any news on its future would be good news.iTunes 10Speaking of apps that could use a 64-bit kick in the pants -- Apple, what’s going on with iTunes? Despite being the center of the known universe for all iDevices, iTunes continues to be upgraded on top of molasses-like legacy code. It’s like living in a parallel universe, knowing that the Windows version of iTunes is actually faster than it is on the Mac -- that speaks volumes.While cool new features would be welcome also, the reality is that iTunes hasn’t grown all that much over the last few major releases -- does anyone really use the Genius feature, for instance? Where is the built-in lyrics feature for music? (Apple added a section for such metadata several versions back, but you have to do the footwork yourself.) Or how about better media management capabilities, now that we’ve got ever-bigger video files to sync to our iPad but are running out of space on our internal hard drives?iTunes 9.x feels pretty kludgy by this point, so anything is welcome here -- but keep in mind that most big iTunes updates tend to come later in the year, often coupled with the release of new iPods.iLife ’11Maybe we’re starting to sound like a broken record here, but iLife ’09 is another Apple package that’s getting long in the tooth, and could also use a much-needed 64-bit transfusion. We can’t be the only ones who notice that iPhoto, for example, starts to bog down the more we throw pictures at it, so… there’s that. And don’t get us started about iMovie, which for all of its simplicity is an absolute speed dog when you actually have to use it.Hey, perhaps we’re just impatient -- but it seems to us that for all the advancements in the processor and graphics speed of our Macs, it doesn’t take long before all this great software starts to bog down. iLife ’11 might be a few more months in the oven, but it’s never too early to request that Apple slow down on the new features and pull a Snow Leopard here: Let’s see some performance tweaks!iPhone OS + Jailbreak = LoveIf Apple really wanted to make heads spin at WWDC, they’d put down their swords and start playing nice with the jailbreak community. You know, those guys (and gals?) who tirelessly work to free iPhone OS from Apple’s shackles so we can install stuff that Cupertino wishes didn’t exist in the first place, including a GSM unlock for our iPhone (which also frees us from AT&T’s heavy ball and chain at the same time).Frankly, the “cat and mouse game” (as Steve Jobs himself has referred to it) has kind of landed in favor of the jailbreak community anyway of late, with even the latest iPhone OS 4.0 beta build being easy prey for the jailbreak geniuses. Maybe it’s time for Apple to stop worrying and love the jailbreak, officially opening up the device to other apps beyond their gated App Store walls. We can dream, can’t we…?MacBook Air, ReduxNow that the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines have gotten a souped-up refresh and the iPad is on the scene, the MacBook Air is beginning to look a little more overpriced and underpowered than usual. Even though the device is barely two and a half years old, it may be time for Apple to either put it out of its misery or rework it as a touchscreen-enabled, lust-worthy member of Cupertino’s notebook lineup.It’s not hard to imagine that one day soon, the MacBook Air might very well become the “iPad Extreme” -- think of an iPad with attached hardware keyboard, maybe even capable of dual-booting both Mac OS X and iPhone OS so you can get the best of both worlds. We might line up for that one!iPhone Goes CDMAWill they or won’t they? An iPhone compatible with the CDMA networks used by Verizon Wireless and Sprint here in the U.S. has been rumored and desired since the device took center stage at the Macworld 2007 keynote, and here we are more than three years later and AT&T continues to have an exclusive clamp on the GSM-only device.Of course, rumors have run rampant in recent months that AT&T’s exclusive contract is about to end, and that possibly both Verizon and Sprint will finally get in the iPhone game -- to the detriment of AT&T, who is reported to lose possibly as much as 40 percent of its customer base as they defect to one of the CDMA carriers. No better time to announce such a device than at WWDC, where an annual refresh of the iPhone hardware is expected to be a lock.All we ask is that Apple make it an “all in one” device -- meaning both GSM and CDMA, so we can sign in blood with Verizon, Sprint or AT&T here and then have the freedom to buy local GSM-based SIM cards for international travel. Is that asking too much?Presenting… Something Totally New?Apple has had a busy year refreshing its Mac hardware, announcing and subsequently launching the iPad and prepping for the rumored fourth-generation iPhone expected in June, but what if we’ve all overlooked something totally new? Cupertino would seem to have all of the bases covered, from laptop and desktop computers, portable media devices, mobile phones and peripherals -- but that doesn’t mean they can’t still sneak in a curve ball to “shock and awe” us.The question is, what might that be? Only Steve Jobs and maybe a handful of others in Cupertino presumably know the answer to that question, but Apple has a way of dazzling us by reinventing something we’ve always taken for granted, such as the cell phone (with the original iPhone in 2007) or even our very definition of “portable” music (the original iPod in 2001).Whatever it might be, you’re almost certainly guaranteed to have never needed it before, but you’ll surely have to have it once Steve Jobs whips it out. That’s just how Apple rolls.*****Of course, WWDC isn’t simply about hot new Apple products -- it’s about the company intimately working with third-party developers to create the next generation of software that we’ll all swoon over. One thing that the iPhone OS-based devices have shown us: The future is less about hardware and more about the software that runs it.Viewed in that light, the developer conference isn’t simply a “gee-whiz” keynote with fancy new toys from Apple, but rather a plentiful seeding of developer talent that will grow over time and continue to harvest wonders for years to come. We can’t wait to see what Apple helps them create next!
Macworld 2010 special iPad event liveblog

Filed under: Macworld, Hardware, Blogging, iPad We are live from the floor of Macworld 2010, where they're be talking about the iPad in a special event feature Jason Snell, Macworld editor-in-chief, and a panel of industry experts. We have heard that won't be an actual iPad on the show floor, so it's not clear whether we'll get to see the device, but we will hear commentary and insight on what the iPad means for Apple and the world at large. After the break, find an updating liveblog of the event as it happens, straight from Moscone Center in San Francisco.2:04PM Ted: I would like to see 1) if there will be iPhone OS changes brought back from the iPad, and what hidden features we'll see there. And 2) what options are available for printing. Dan: Can I use it as a phone? Or a camera? (laughter) No, when we saw it, we said, the screen looks kind of empty, doesn't it? You can put about six apps in the dock, so I think we'll see a newer design for the homescreen, something that takes more advantage of the extra space. Something more appropriate for the product rather than just a large iPhone.2:02PM Jason: Frasier Spiers said do you realize how amazing this will be in education? And yes, you'll see a real change there. One last question: what is your biggest unanswered question about the iPad?2:01PM Andy: It will lend credibility to the idea of computing via tablet, and Android and others will follow that path in another year or so as well. It'll finally break us free from the "type on this, look at this" paradigm we've been stuck with.2:00PM Andy: We'll also see a halo effect. Star Wars didn't invent the sci-fi movie, but it showed that sci-fi wasn't the problem, bad movies were. So tablets aren't the problem, bad tablets are, and the iPad will remind people of that.2:00PM Andy: iPad won't be a big hit until 2011 -- it will take a while after the people in this room buy them to show them off to the normal civilian, and the next time they need a portable computer, they'll remember the iPad they saw on the airplane or in the classroom.1:59PM Ted: I also think we'll be surprised. Third-party developers will surprise us. Jason: Right, apps are front and center on iPad, and we only had web apps when the iPhone came out. Andy: I don't believe that tablets have been tried and failed, I don't believe they've ever been tried. No tablet I've seen compares to the iPad -- tablets I've seen are a desktop computer in tablet form, the iPad is an actual tablet.1:58PM Ted: This is also the ultimate remote control. We'll see it controlling a more digital home in the next few years, and the iPad is the way to control it. Turn on stereo, run lights, control thermostat, the iPad is made for that.1:57PM Jason: What about people who use only a fraction of a computer -- only email or only web browsing? Ryan: Sure, it's fine if netbooks get assassinated by the iPad -- around the house computer. But it's still not going to take the place of productivity or when I need to go on the road. In addition to, but not a replacement for. Ted: Agreed, around the house computer instead of a laptop. I'm optimistic about the long-term as well -- it's not there today, but things will change. Majority of people with a computer today don't really utilize it to the full extent, and the iPad will satisfy those folks.1:55PM Ryan: I'm not so sure -- you need feedback, you need tactility, you can type fast because you need the keys and you need to know where they are. Apple did release a keyboard dock -- the tech may change, but we're not there now, and it's going to be a while before we abandon the keyboard or the traditional computer. Steve even acknowledged that it was an in-between device.1:54PM Dan: Younger people will be the one to watch. When this becomes an option, will people not bother to learn or use the traditional mouse and keyboard? We're used to it, but if you look at someone learning, you realize the challenges behind the mouse and the cursor and the traditional interface. There's a huge disconnect, and especially for kids, we'll have to see if they prefer the iPad to the exclusion of traditional computing. Their intial reaction is to touch.. which is why you don't take them to museums (laughter). When kids grow up with this, will they wonder what's wrong with us for using archaic keyboards and mice?1:52PM Jason: Time to talk about the future. What impact will the iPad have in the next five years? What about the tablet market? MS said a while ago that tablets were the future, and they're a flop so far, basically. Will we see a significant change in tablet computing or how we use them?1:52PM Jason: Some people don't mind reading on screens like the iPad, some people do. There will be options no matter what. Kindle is for reading books, iPad has more functionality. Please no, Amazon, put in an API for apps -- its strength is reading books. Ted: Will you feel that way when you have to carry two devices? Dan: I still carry an iPhone and an iPod, but then again I'm really strange.1:50PM Andy: We already have an iPad nano, it's the iPhone. If you want something with less or more functionality, you've got choices.1:50PM Dan: They can totally coexist, just like the original iPod was still around after the iPod touch. The iPad won't kill the Kindle any more than the Kindle killed the book.1:50PM Andy: The $500 price point is now radioactive if you're an ereader. But you can do very well at a lower price point. Ted: I also think there will be a cheaper iPad, just as the iPhone dropped in price after it came out. Jason: I can see a day when the Kindle is free. Ryan: Absolutely. That's the future of Amazon's business model. It's not going away.1:48PM Ryan: The question is: are you going to want to read on the iPad. Comic books make a ton of sense, but I didn't want to read a book on the iPad -- too bright, colors too vivid, I feel like the contrast on the Kindle is better for certain reading. Books will still be best read on e-Ink. Jason: I agree that even with the iPad, there's a future for something like the kindle or a more traditional ereader. Ted: I've read books on my iPhone and it's not painful by any means. I think from a price perspective, the Kindle is a hard sell. Dan: Ha, well the large Kindle is a bad investment anyway.1:46PM Dan: Bookstore wasn't even active in the iPads we used -- the icon was there, but it didn't work, we haven't even seen it yet. Jason: A Kindle app for the iPad will be interesting, too. Comic books, thanks for mentioning those, because comics on the iPad's bigger screen will be a big deal.1:45PM Andy: I'm co-authoring an app that will work as my printing press -- once the press gets built, then it's just making the content. There's always an outlet, as opposed to a third-party where you have to wait for approval.1:44PM Andy: Application-based content is here to stay -- designing your own app can help you release content your own way. Jason: Except that costs more money. Build your own app is great, but some devs can't do that. Maybe a third-party will, but not everyone can do their own.1:43PM Andy: iBooks won't be the most signficant part of the periodical delivery mechanism on the iPad -- even comic book and periodical publishers aren't supporting the iPad so much as tablet devices in general. They're using Webkit -- not platform specific, but iPad included.1:42PM Andy: The iBooks app is a quiet piece of news, but that's an incredibly significant announcement. That app that we tried that day was probably the least functional of all the apps on there -- will it freeze up, will it slow down? It's downloadable because it's not ready in time for shipping, and Apple understands that the app will have to evolve quickly and update often.1:41PM Ted: A semester's worth of books on the iPad at (hopefully) a fraction of the cost, not to mention that the used market could possibly be gone for good, a good thing in publisher's eyes. Jason: Lower the price of the new textbook, make more money back on the lost used market. If they'll agree to that, which they probably won't.1:40PM Ted: I want to get back to books for a second. Textbooks will change thanks to the iPad for sure.1:39PM Jason: There will be apps for newspapers or magazines, but it'll have to be someone else or they'll have to make their own, and that's a fractured space. Ryan: Apple could have changed the game on that, but they aren't doing that now.1:38PM Ryan: Except that book aspect here is books. There's no periodicals for the iPad right now, no iMagazines. If Apple had created a standard or introduced an app like the Kindle, maybe revolutionary. But all they're talking about right now is books. There's no solution for the industries that are having trouble.1:37PM Dan: Still, the music industry lost the battle for DRM, will that happen to book publishers? Andy: The web was an experiment that absolutely failed for books and magazines, and what it did was train the average consumer that a web browser is free -- charging for web content isn't right. But the Kindle taught that produced content by professionals does cost money, and the iPad can run that same market.1:36PM Andy: It's a computer, so it can do whatever devs and content publishers want it to do. Apple is using epub, which is remarkably flexible for sharing and lending books and licenses, even to libraries. So it could make it easier to share and borrow books -- your local public library as a version of Amazon.com. "There's a license available for Tom Clancy's book, I'll sign that out." Dan: Sure, libraries may have applications even -- if they can find the money.1:35PM Dan: It seems like the early days of the music industry's digital revolution, where publishers want to lock things down. It's a good idea for convenience -- a whole library in a device. But losing that freedom to content and sharing worries me.1:34PM Jason: When this product was rumored for months... Ryan: Years... Decades.... Jason: When Nostradamus predicted the iPad (laughter), ebooks were a big deal. What does this mean for books and newspapers and magazines?1:33PM Ryan: It's not as intimate of an experience on a laptop, but it's a little more convenient. Jason: Accessories will be key -- cradles, docks, stands. Ted: Two different modes -- primarily a consumption device, like a book. But more serious work will require a keyboard, stand, different environment.1:32PM Jason: In the testing area at the event, iPads were on raised platforms, with each one having an Apple employee told "if you let this thing out of your sight, we won't just fire you, your family will end up wondering what happened to you." Andy: Glossy front. Not a problem with a notebook, but what about a tablet? We'll see. Dan: It's easier, I can tilt the iPad anyway I want. Ryan: You also don't have to be holding your laptop at all times, but the iPad will have to be held up most of the time.1:30PM Andy: That'll be interesting to see what happens in real life though. Apple events are magic acts -- they're planned. When Steve was using that book on stage, was the chair even designed for him to hold the iPad in the right place? What will it be like to hold an iPad (1.5 lbs) while standing or trying to do something in a weird position? What about when people see what you're doing in a coffeeshop, or at a table? We will have to see.1:29PM Ted: People that are happy with an iPad today will be happy with a laptop in three or four years. Dan: That's a bold statement. There's a duality between iPad today vs. iPad in three or four years. But there is a ubiquity to computers today, and we've all adapted quickly to having them around in the same places the iPad will be -- on the couch, in the kitchen, and so on. It's nice to have something that doesn't make you feel like you have to match to it, but it matches to you.1:27PM Ted: The iPad can't do everything that a Mac can do, but the release of the iWork software was an opening salvo. You can start using this as a productivity machine -- you can't use it tomorrow, but look how far the iPhone has come thus far.1:27PM Andy: There are two checkboxes for me as a user -- I need to write a lot at any given moment, and I need to transfer files on and off of it, and the iPad meets both needs just fine for me. This will be as transformative a product as the original Mac was.1:26PM Jason: Is it right to say that Apple is taking another crack at what computers are, and is it the right approach? Andy: Yes, I think so. Computers don't have to have file systems or browsers, they just have to solve problems, and the iPad still does that.1:25PM Andy: I agree -- if you have a system level switch, it even solves the problem of support. If something breaks, make sure that override on third-party apps is turned off, and you're back to working paradise.1:24PM Dan: I'm playing devil's advocate, because I agree with you, but Apple's philsophy is that. They don't want you to be a tinkerer, because they aren't aimed at tinkerers. We don't agree with that, but it's their product, even if we're buying it. You can do what you want, if you go down the jailbreak road, and people will always find a way. But it is a lot harder than it needs to be, even if I understand why Apple is doing that.1:23PM Jason: Yeah I think there's room for non-App Store apps, but App Store apps would get preference. Ryan: Yes, the App Store is literally a revolution in software distribution. But Apple is not bugding on their philsophy at all. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to set the override switch and do what you want.1:22PM Ryan: 3rd party apps are dangerous, but as long as you warn users, what's the problem? It is my toaster oven, right?1:21PM Jason: App Store -- will it work the same on the iPad, will we see the same iPhone issues? Andy: If it works, then great. If not, the weaknesses will be more clear. I want a computer that will potentially will always work, never crash, will always run software. The win from the App Store concept is that you get a more stable machine at the expense of freedom that you might not excercise anyway. Steve Jobs is a benevolent tyrant -- he'll give you everything you want, all he demands is absolute obedience, and you'll be fine.1:20PM Ted: What do you care, I said? And no, they say, it will degrade the experience of using the toaster oven. And one more thing, they said -- those poptarts in your pantry won't work with your toaster oven either -- you didn't buy them directly from our CuisineArts store. Plus, they'd actually rejected Poptarts from the Art Store. Extended metaphor -- if the iPhone was a toaster, Ted would have issues getting it to do what he wanted.1:18PM Ted: All of the closed things concern me as they apply to the iPad. He's telling a story about how the lower story of his house is very cold downstairs, so he decided to rig up a toaster oven to serve as a space heater. He rigged it up with an extension cord, and it didn't work. He called tech support, and said he was using an extension cord, and they asked if it had a "Made for Cuisinart" sticker on it. It didn't, so he bought a special Cuisinart cord, but it still didn't work. Called back tech support for the toaster, and finally had to admit he was using the toaster oven as a space heater. "No," they said, "you're not authorized to do that." Terms of purchase actually prohibit "jailbaking" (laughs from the audience).1:15PM Ted: On the record, I think the iPad will be a great success, so I like it, I'm buying one. But I expect the iPad is still a closed platform, and it will not replace laptops and more complex computers.1:14PM Jason: Ted is here, even though he didn't use the iPhone, because this seems like Apple saying "we're moving the ball forward" in computing. This is a new paradigm -- touchscreen, direct interaction. iWork is going from Mac straight to the iPad -- is this a netbook/laptop replacement or not?1:13PM Dan: Yeah without the bezel, there's no place to put your thumb - we're so accustomed to the iPhone that it seems like wasted space, but once you use it, it'll fade into the background like everything else.1:12PM Jason: The bezel got complaints, but we have thumbs and you need that extra not-screen space to actually hold it. Ryan disagrees -- he says the iPhone has no bezel and people hold it just find. Andy: This one I really need a grip on, though -- people may even put grip tape on the back to help you not drop it. In the tub for example. (laughs)1:11PM Ihnatko: We could probably charge $499 for these foam iPads though. If anyone wants some blog hits, just take one of these and get some blurry shots of it, you'll get thousands of hits in a few seconds.1:10PM Andy's first impression: build was high quality. It feels like a premium product -- no gaps, it really does disappear in your hand. The device itself disappears within the first five seconds -- it's all experience. Holding it is not the same as seeing it, which most of the complainers have only done.1:08PM Jason: The screen is 4:3, not 16:9 -- even when they showed Star Trek, it was a little weird, but a 16:9 device would be more uncomfortable to hold. Ryan: Right, you can't have both. Either be really wide or more traditional, and they went 4:3, and I kind of prefer it.1:08PM Ryan: Also slightly less foamy than these foam prototypes on stage. It feels really well constructed, a bit heavier than it should feel, but still portable. I do have complaints, but we'll get to that.1:07PM Jason: It helps that we've seen the iPhone interface. Ryan: Everything serves the screen. As a browser, it's nice to go in and see nothing but the content.1:06PM Dan Warren: It's suprising how natural it feels. There's something about it that feels very intuitive. Like a book, you don't pick it up and think "how can I use this?" It makes sense.1:06PM Ted is the only one who hasn't touched the iPad, but everyone else was at the event. What were your first impressions?1:05PM Panels are coming up on stage. Jason says "We don't have a real one, Apple's not here." Four of the five people on stage have used an iPad, however. Dan Warren of Macworld, Ted Landau, Mac Observer and Macfixit. Ryan Block of GDGT and our old Engadget colleague, and Andy Ihnatko.1:04PM Paul introducing Jason Snell, finishes with "We'll see you next year, right?" Hope so!1:03PM The person holding one of the balls that was bouncing around? She just won an iPad from Macworld -- they're going to give her one when the iPad actually ships. Congrats! Maybe we should have participated in the ball bouncing.1:02PM Here's Paul Kent. "Welcome to our iPad special event." He's got an iPad mockup, but it's not the real thing. "You know that this is not shipping yet?" He just dropped it as a joke.1:01PM The lights are going down.12:59PM "Ladies and gentlemen, we need to fill every seat." The hall is practically full, and still more are coming in the door. Someone behind us thinks there will be an iPad here, but we'll see. 12:57PM Four minutes out -- even the press corps is really batting these balls around. I just got hit in the head. That's what we go through for you readers. 12:54PM The crowd is bouncing around a big ball and they seem excited about the iPad. Good thing they probably don't have one -- if one showed up in the hall here, they might get mobbed. 12:50PM Once again, word direct from Jason Snell this morning is that we will not see an actual iPad at this event. But of course, you never know. 12:49PM They're showing the promotional video that's been playing all week here at Macworld. The public has just been allowed in to see the show, and seats are filling up.TUAWMacworld 2010 special iPad event liveblog originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:55:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Permalink�|�Email this�|�Comments Apple - San Francisco - Moscone Center - Jason Snell - Macworld
Why the iPhone Platform is Still the Best Game in Town

How quickly we forget our very recent history. On January 9, 2007 Steve Jobs announced the iPhone at the Macworld convention. The original iPhone was to be serviced exclusively by Cingular. Also in January of 2007 we learned that Cingular, originally a joint venture between SBC and BellSouth, would be re-branded as AT&T. We then slowly learned as the iPhone's official release date drew closer, that the iPhone would continue to be exclusive to AT&T, would not be subsidized by AT&T, and you could purchase phones directly from Apple Retail Stores. As the layers of this onion were pealed back even further, we learned that Cingular (or was that AT&T?) agreed to pay Apple nearly eighteen dollars per month per subscriber for the privilege of being exclusive. Apple was also in control of the activation process which required an iTunes account. Moving forward Apple was also responsible for distributing all updates to the iPhone, not the carrier, not AT&T. Apple was completely in charge, completely. Oh, and there was one more thing, no third-party native apps, only web apps. In fact, Steve Jobs was at that time quite adamant that there would never be natively developed applications for the iPhone and that web 2.0 applications would be all that developers would ever need. Who Owns the Relationship with the Customer? What this fundamentally did was change the dynamics of whose customers were they first. The carrier's or the device manufacture's? A question that, until this point in time, was never asked. The point that Apple was making, was that consumers would choose Apple products before they would choose a cell phone carrier. And Apple was right. For the first time, a device manufacturer was in control of the relationship with the customer ahead of the carrier. If you owned an iPhone, you belonged to Apple first, then perhaps to the cell phone carrier. This change in the fundamental relationship with the consumer was cemented by large numbers. Very large numbers. Some of the largest numbers in the history of mobile computing. Then it happened, the App Store opened on July 10, 2008 and the next day the iPhone 3G was launched with iPhone OS 2.0. All existing iPhones and iPod touches were able to update to iPhone OS 2.0 as well. A new player was introduced into the equation, the third-party developer. Apple may have won the battle with the carrier in establishing its position with the customer, there was no question there. Apple came first in that relationship. But where does this third wheel fit in? A distant fourth place in line would be the manufactures of development tools and technologies that third-party developers choose to use. Companies like Adobe that manufacture these tools and technologies are even further removed from the mobile customer. Their focus is on making life easier for developers, not better products for mobile customers. It only makes sense since their customers are the developers. But just how important would this new iPhone development platform be to third-party developers and companies that build solutions that these third-party developers use? As only time would tell, and that all depended on what was at stake. And in the beginning, what was at stake was not yet known. That is, not until the numbers started rolling in. Quarter over quarter record-breaking sales of iPhones and iPod touches, and quarter over quarter record-breaking sales of Apps and unimaginable download statistics. Now everyone wants to own the customer. The only player that was clearly out of the race was the carrier, they were just along for the ride. This is all well and good for the device manufacturer, cellular carrier, and third-party developers. But there was another quite player out there whose battle was already over. The music and movie industries. What everyone seems to have missed was that the explosion of the iPhone into the hands of consumers was more of a play of convergence than its ability to surf the web, respond to e-mail and play games. A cell phone, and an iPod in one device (not just a phone with iTunes installed). Forget everything else. Everyone had a cell phone, and everyone had an iPod. And in June of 2009, when the price dropped to $99, absolutely everyone started thinking about using their iPod to answer phone calls. This is an important factor to consider. Everyone who had (or still has) an iPod is utilizing iTunes to manage and even purchase their music. Once you have a sizable music library in iTunes, and you have grown accustomed to purchasing musing from the iTunes Music Store, you are pretty much hooked. And the numbers on this side of the equation are not too shabby either. In April of 2008, Apple finally passed Walmart and iTunes became the #1 Music retailer currently representing more than 25 percent of all music sales in the U.S. Consumers have a relationship with their music, not their device and certainly not their cellular carrier. What has always defined the relationship has been the music. And Apple was and still is in control of that. It really had nothing to do with how great the iPhone was or was not. The fact that the iPhone is great only strengthens the bond, but it did not create the bond. That bond between consumers and Apple began with the iPod and remains intact due to the consumers owning and maintaining sizable music libraries via Apple’s software, hardware and online services. Every so often the music industry has tried to wrestle control of the customers away from Apple, but has thus far been unsuccessful. So now we can come to understand why developers are flocking to the iPhone platform and developing applications for Apple’s iPhone. There is a huge install base of customers purchasing apps that seems to increase quarter over quarter. And these customers have proven time and time again that they are willing to pay for music, movies, apps and connectivity. Focusing on the Apps, for the most part, since its debut on the market, Apple has maintained a single platform. The variations between the iPod touch and iPhone has remained subtle. Each being able to host the latest version of the iPhone SDK. Making the current total of units an astounding 50 million units. 50 million units all on basically the same device, running basically the same OS, and all able to access the same software from the same App Store. With the device manufacturer owning the relationship, and in control of software updates and distribution of third-party applications. What's more is the length of time that this particular situation has been stable. Three years running on a stable platform (which also includes iPod touch devices) to a growing number of users that now totals 85 million customers. Never before has such a consistent mobile platform been available to as many users for this length of time. Multi-Platform Investment That brings us to the value proposition. There is a cost associated with supporting additional platforms when developing mobile applications. And that cost will be balanced against the total opportunity there is to be gained. Each splinter in the platform, be it screen resolution, device capabilities, of operating system difference all increase the cost of targeting and maintaining software on that platform. These costs are not only related to writing code specific to each platform. The way that a Blackberry user expects to interact with an application is different from that of an Android user and different again from an iPhone user. Each platform has its own Human Interface Guidelines. This requires modifications in the design of the application as well as the support of variations in the testing cycle. And depending on how great the variances between devices are within a given platform, the approach to on device quality testing may vary as well. Looking at the current competition, RIM may still outnumber based on the total number of units sold to date, but if one takes a closer look, one will quickly discover not only a seriously fragmented collection of device profiles to test against, but also some rather low numbers of individuals downloading and using third-party applications. The “Crackberry” does one thing better than any other device on the market, and that is e-mail. The problem is that times change and most consumers are not utilizing e-mail as their primary means of electronic communication. Twitter and Facebook are replacing SMS and e-mail. So much so that in a recent survey, 40 percent of all existing Blackberry owners claim that they will switch over to iPhone when they replace their current device. What would be interesting to know is how many of those same Blackberry customers already have an iPod and an established iTunes music library. RIM’s only fault is that they have been a player for a long time. And over time, a device manufacture’s will ultimately start to splinter, and their customer base will fragment making the maintenance of applications for third-party develops across all fragments more and more expensive. Then there is Android. Can anyone honestly deny that Google will help Android become the dominate licensed operating system across portable devices? The problem that third-party developers face is that right out of the gate Google fragmented the market. With the OS divided into almost equal thirds presently (1.5, 1.6 and 2.1), the number of new Androids coming to market is mind numbing. Buyers remorse with a locked in two-year contract has become par for the course. The support costs for third-party developers on the barley one year only Android platform is that it is actually in worse condition than Blackberry. The number of variances based on-screen resolution, device capabilities and operating system versions is a nightmare to manage. And at the rate to which new devices are coming out, it is impossible to test on device across all variations, simply impossible. What is worse still is that each device manufacture can decide whether or not to include the “Google Experience” with their device, and decide on their own when to provide updates for the carrier to push out to the carrier's customers. This will prove to be problematic for those responsible for identifying testing scenarios, budgeting time, and scheduling regression tests to ensure consistent quality. Android Platform Versions Return on Investment What will the ongoing development costs be and what is the potential gain? For iPhone the overall support costs are currently low as the platform is not too terribly fragmented. Another thing that Apple has going for it is the predictably in which it operates. Almost like clockwork year after year. Original iPhone released June 2007, iPhone OS 2.0 announced March 2008, iPhone 3G released June 2008, iPhone OS 3.0 announced March 2009, iPhone 3GS released June 2009, iPhone OS 4.0 announced April 2010. Developers can plan for it, and business investors that fund third-party development can budget for it. A very stable platform with extremely predictable release cycles. Can the same be said for Android after just one year? Who knows when the next device will be making its way to consumer, what version of the OS it will have on it, and which manufacture will produce it. We don’t even know if it will be a phone or a television set! Not only does Google not own the relationship with Android customers, neither does the device manufacture. The carrier is still in control of the relationship following the old school paradigm of cell phone carriers. With RIM, the majority of users are hanging on to older devices that are not capable of running a modern mobile application. Certainly nothing on par to what can be developed on the most recent Blackberry OS, or even on Android or iPhone. And will RIM have its Blackberry 5.0 out of beta and on enough devices long enough for any sort of return on investment before Blackberry 6.0 is released? While RIM may in fact have a model more closely resembling Apple in the fact that they own the customer relationship first, not the carriers, RIM suffers from its long running legacy. Conclusion The point being is that the iPhone is a very well-managed, barely fragmented (as of today) platform with a huge customer base that can’t seem to get enough apps to satisfy their need to make mico-purchases at the app store. The iPhone has effectively replaced the candy rack at the checkout aisle for impulse purchases. Under the guidance of Steve Jobs, and since October 2001 with the introduction of the iPod, Apple has been earning its right to own outright the relationship it has with its customers. Through rigorous engineering best practices, and the ability to deliver a quality product like clockwork year after year, the consistent stability of the platform has made the iPhone a safe haven for third-party developers. Developers that are interested in developing high quality solutions to a well-groomed customer base that is willing to pay for that experience. What could possibly be a justifiable reason for the government to step in and take all that away?
★ Reading Between the iPhone OS 4.0 Lines

A few months ago, I heard suggestions that Apple had tentative plans to release a developer beta of Mac OS X 10.7 at WWDC this June. That is no longer the case. Mac OS X 10.7 development continues, but with a reduced team and an unknown schedule. It’s my educated guess that there will be no 10.7 news at WWDC this year, and probably none until WWDC 2011. Apple’s company-wide focus has since been focused intensely on one thing: iPhone OS 4.1 The number one priority at Apple is to grow mobile market share faster than Android. Anything that is not directly competitive with Android is on the back burner. Several of the “tent-pole”2 features in iPhone OS 4 that Apple promoted at yesterday’s event are directly related to this. Multitasking “Multitasking” is a catchall term that, in the context of iPhone OS 4, encompasses several different things. On an OS like Mac OS X it’s simpler to understand — multiple apps (and faceless background-only processes) operate simultaneously. On an OS like iPhone OS, that’s not how it’s going to work, and for good reason. Memory and CPU are severely constrained on mobile devices compared to regular PC hardware. Apps don’t run in windows, they run on the full screen. So when you leave one app and switch to another in iPhone OS 4, the GUI — the visual interface — is not going to continue updating in the background. What will happen, if the app is updated to support the new OS 4 APIs (which, I expect, all actively-maintained apps will be), is that the app will stay in memory but stop processing. Switch back and it’ll start processing again, right where it left off. Think pause/resume, as opposed to the current iPhone OS model of quit/relaunch. The VOIP and background audio processing examples do not involve the full app continuing to run in the background. The way these things work in iPhone OS 4 is, more or less, that the app registers with the system for what specific things it wants to do in the background. When the user leaves one app for another, the app that is being put into the background receives an event from the OS telling it that it is about to be paused, and at this point it has a chance to store its state, ask for time in the background to complete a task like a file upload, and register specific threads that will continue performing specific lightweight tasks like audio playback. Take Pandora for example. When in the background, what will be running is a faceless (no UI) thread that just streams audio. Only when you re-activate Pandora — tap its icon to open the full app — will the entire app start running again. When the system is running low on memory, it will automatically quit the least-recently used app that is paused in the background. Users should not notice this, except that when next they go back to such an app that has been reaped by the system to reclaim its memory, it might take a few moments longer for the app to be ready, and it will be like today, where the app itself will be responsible for restoring context. And, thus, apps still must be written in a way that assumes they might be shut down by the system with only a few moments notice. The result is that switching between two or three recently used apps will feel very snappy. Users do not have to think about or even be aware of concepts like launching and quitting. Those are implementation details. They just have to think about opening, or perhaps better put, going to one app at a time that will take up the full screen. Sort of like how you go to a web site — you go to apps on the iPhone. And, now, for apps like Skype and Pandora, users can think about apps that can continue to do stuff (play audio, receive incoming VOIP calls) even when they’re not open. There is nothing about the new iPhone OS 4 multitasking that a user must learn. They might just notice that “switching back” to recently used apps, via the same old home screen icons, is snappier. For the most part, using background-capable third-party apps will be just like using the background-capable system apps from Apple. It’s an efficient, clever way of making switching more useful and quicker. It’s also very much like the “multitasking” system Android has had in place all along. My understanding of how multitasking works on Android is that it’s pretty much like what I described above for iPhone OS 4: GUIs do not continue to update (and consume CPU time) in the background, but apps stay in memory when you switch from one to another, until the system runs low on memory, at which point it starts automatically and silently quitting the least-recently used ones. Background Android apps can register faceless threads to “do stuff”, like play audio. I don’t think such background threads on Android are limited to specific things like audio playback and VOIP as they are on iPhone OS 4.0, but Android’s multitasking model is far more like what Apple just announced for iPhone OS 4 than it is to a traditional PC OS like Mac OS X or Windows. One neat feature of Android is a listing in its Settings app that shows you where your battery life has been consumed since your last charge. In my use of a Nexus One, very little is consumed by apps in the background. Battery life on the Nexus One is consumed mostly by the display and by the wireless networking. I suspect that’s largely true for the iPhone from version 1-3, and will continue to be true with iPhone OS 4. Like copy-and-paste, it was inevitable that Apple would add multitasking to iPhone OS eventually. Whether it was always planned for this year I do not know, but once Android became Apple enemy number one, multitasking became a must-have catch-up feature. Adding it now takes away the first item on the Android-vs.-iPhone talking points list. (And despite its similarities to Android’s model, Apple is, of course, pitching it as original and innovative.) As for why the iPhone 3G and second-generation iPod Touch don’t get multitasking with iPhone OS 4, that’s easy — those machines only have 128 MB of RAM. The 3GS and third-generation Touch both have 256. (The 8 GB iPod Touch still being sold today is like the iPhone 3GS — second-generation hardware. It will not get multitasking with iPhone OS 4.) “Paused” apps on iPhone OS 4 are still resident in memory, so there’s just no way it would work with only 128 MB total (some of which, remember, goes to the system itself). The CPUs in the 3GS and latest iPod Touch are faster too, and that’s a factor, but I believe RAM is the central reason. iAds and Google Ever since the Apple-Google rivalry turned into a war, there’s been increased speculation that Apple might launch its own search engine. The thinking is simple. If Apple wants to go to war with Google, then they’ll be tempted to go after Google’s crown jewels — search. Search is still and may well always remain Google’s most popular service. But Google doesn’t make money from search. They make money from advertising. If you want to fuck with Google, you go after advertising revenue.3 Now, it’s true that much — most? — of Google’s ad revenue comes from ads that are displayed alongside search results. Google search generates a tremendous amount of ad revenue. But that’s last decade’s battle. It doesn’t make much sense for Apple to take on Google in search, given Google’s tremendous lead in the space and Apple’s utter lack of expertise in the field. It takes longer for Mac OS X’s Spotlight to search my MacBook Pro’s hard disk than for Google to search its index of the entire web. The war for search is old. Where’s the next battlefield for advertising? Mobile devices is one guess — a guess shared by Google and Apple. And here’s a field where Apple is ahead, not behind. Again, just like with multitasking, the idea that Apple would build support for advertising into iPhone OS is obvious, something that I suspect they might have pursued sooner or later even if Android did not exist. There’s a tremendous amount of money at stake. Now that Android is considered the number one threat to the iPhone, though, mobile advertising became an immediate priority. Jobs’s pitch for iAds during the event yesterday wasn’t even coy about it being a fuck-you to Google. He emphasized first the idea that on mobile, unlike the desktop, search is not a good venue for advertising. The idea being that on the iPhone, people aren’t searching, they’re using apps, and therefore the prime space for ads on mobile devices is right there inside apps. I’m not arguing whether Jobs is correct about search not being good for ads on mobile — I don’t know — but clearly, when he says “search”, he means “Google search”. So that’s knock one against Google. Jobs then showed examples of iAds — rich, cinematic, interactive software ads. They look like native iPhone software, but they’re written in straight HTML5 (so it’s a bonus fuck-you, to Adobe). The word Jobs used repeatedly was emotion. They’re intended to be about design and feeling. It’s about a venue for advertising that can feel like good TV commercials and full-page magazine ads. That’s knock two against Google. Google ads may well be effective, but they are not emotional. Consider the Toy Story 3 iAd Jobs demoed. What kind of ad through Google could compare to that? There’s a solid slice of the DF audience that firmly believes that all advertising is contemptible bullshit. They’ve already skipped to the end of this article. Some advertising, no matter the medium — TV, newspaper, magazine — is junk. But some is art. Commercial art, of course, but art nonetheless. Online advertising — mobile or not — has been largely devoid of this caliber of advertising. iAds is Apple’s attempt to create high-caliber ads for mobile. Jobs seemed more enthusiastic about iAds than anything else in the show yesterday. So the anti-Google message with iAds was two-fold: first, search isn’t good for mobile ads; and second, Google — logical, engineering-driven Google — will never provide an ad platform for emotional advertising like design-driven Apple can. Jobs’s iAds pitch was not directed to consumers. It was directed to creatives in the ad industry — and creative developers who want something better than text ads inside their apps. Miscellany I detected one other veiled insult against Google during the event — Jobs’s emphasis during the multitasking segment about how seriously Apple values the privacy of iPhone users, with regard to data and location information. In the way that the standard knock against Apple is that they maintain too much control over the App Store, the standard knock against Google is that they don’t value user privacy. Jobs’s message: You can trust Apple. At the outset Jobs claimed Apple has sold 50 million iPhones to date and 35 million iPod Touches. They don’t reveal updates to those numbers all that often. Game Center is not about Google, since Google doesn’t have a gaming social network. (Yet?) But it sure seems like a shot against Facebook. Want to play Scrabble or compare your scores against your friends? Game Center aims to supplant Facebook for that sort of thing. iBooks for iPhone is not surprising. (At the press event for the iPad debut in January, someone asked Phil Schiller whether there’d be an iBooks app for the iPhone, and he paused, smiled real big, and said something like “That’s an interesting idea.”) Just like with the Kindle, metadata for bookmarks and your current page sync wirelessly between iBooks on different client devices. If only the iPad’s iWork apps had this sort of wireless syncing. Next question: where’s the Mac client? Or will they build it into iTunes for the Mac and Windows? Shipping the iPad, of course, was a major priority, but like any new project at Apple, it was shipped by a team working in secret. Most of the company found out the details of the iPad when the rest of us did, and that’s why the iPad won’t get an iPhone OS 4 update until version 4.1 later this year — the plans for 4.0 were set and long in development before the iPad was revealed.�↩ “Tent pole” is Apple company lingo for major features in a product that can be promoted to customers. I hear it frequently from friends at the company, but can’t recall it being used in a keynote address before.�↩ If Microsoft still had the set of balls it had in the 90s, Internet Explorer would have been updated years ago to block web ads by default, including those from Google.�↩

The Comments Go Here

MacDiner -- All You Can Eat Apple and Macintosh News and Information

Why we didn't hear about a new iPhone at the iPhone OS 4.0 event

Anticipating WWDC

The Complete History of the Macworld Expo

It’s Coming: Preparing for iPhone OS 4.0

Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

Hot Future Tech Coming to Your Mac, iPhone and iPad

Why Dan Frommer and Scott Moritz Are Wrong on iPhone Sales

15 Things We Might See at WWDC 2010

Macworld 2010 special iPad event liveblog

Why the iPhone Platform is Still the Best Game in Town

★ Reading Between the iPhone OS 4.0 Lines

Software Releases

Site design and software engineering by August Trometer

FoggyNoggin Software -- Cool Mac Apps