iPhone Issues: What Issues? Work Great For Me

"What iPhone issues?  Works fine for me" is the general response I get when i talk to the folks around me about app rejections and Apple's draconian app policies.  They loves their iPhone 3GS's and take every opportunity to brandish it.

And come to think of it, why would they care?  99% of the folks out there don't care that ATT, through Apple, rejected the Google Voice app or that Slingplayer only works through Wi-Fi.  The iPhone serves their needs and to them, that ought to be the headline.  

Nor do they care that Apple has rejected apps for anti-competitive reasons.  The iPhone works.  Period.  Gaming?  Tons of them. Facebook.  Yup.  Browsing the Web.  Piece of cake.  Looking for a restaurant or ATM.  Couldn't be easier.

More often than not, it's ATT's spotty network they bitch about.  Would they recommend the iPhones to their friends and family?  In a heart's beat.  Would they continue to stick with their iPhone when their contracts are up?  Sure.  Though they hope by then, the iPhone would be available on other carriers.  

But Apple "rejected" GV apps, I would come back to the issue that irks me.  Then I just get a blank stare.  Like I'm that crazy guy on the street corner yelling about the end of the world.  

Oh, my poor poor friends who don't know what's really going on...

If Apple Developed Search

With Google CEO's leaving Apple's board of directors and the many posts now about it and a growing call or speculation about a new Silicon Valley rivalry between Apple and Google, it stands be believe that Apple will eventually launch a salvo or two at Mountain View.

And should that happen, it'll be interesting to watch.  Very very interesting.  Two giants separated by less than 10 miles (according to Yahoo Maps - trying to stay neutral in this battle, avoiding using Google Maps).  

One potential area where Apple can really shine is in the area of search, and maybe even hurt Google a bit.  If Microsoft can get Bing working after all these years trials and errors, Apple's years of software and Spotlight development experience can come up with a viable search product and maybe shake things up in the search market.

At least that is also what one ZDNet post is thinking as well.  I've long wondered about this ever since Android came on the scene.  We all know Apple isn't going to be very happy with Google's move into the mobile OS market, much less so that Chrome OS will now compete with Apple's main computer hardware and software business.  

At the same time, though not widely mentioned, is that Apple is always cooking something deep within its headquarters including its own search engine.  And more than likely, search was given a priority since competitive winds from Google got stronger and stronger.

One small drawback is that Google pays Apple to be the default search engine in Safari.  Well, perhaps in the short-term during the transition from Google Search to Apple Search, that might be an issue.  But also keep in mind that Apple might be able to charge advertisers a higher rate given that Apple users generally come from higher income brackets of our society (unforunately, not in my household).

30 million users with a potential for another 50-100 million iPhone and iPod Touch users in the world, that's quite a bit of searches and ad revenues.  Apple's search will be about results and a specific group of users, it won't need to worry about volume.  And with a savy computing market, Apple can potentially rip away from Bing and Google anywhere from 10-15% of the search market while at the same time command a premium in advertising dollars.

So, would you abandon your favorite search engine just because you're an Apple mobile warrior or Mac user?  Well, I'll certainly be very excited and definitely give it a go.  But Apple will have to get Apple Search right from day one.  

Personally, I can see myself still using Google quite a bit unless Apple Search really blows it away and I just don't see that happening.  I have nothing against Google.  I'm quite upset about Google Voice app rejection by ATT.  I've got a G1 and have learn to tolerate its rough edges.  

Overall, Apple has the best hardware-software combo.  And with the right search, watching, Redmond and Mountain View.

Post mentioned:  ZDNet

GV Is A Problem for iPhone, Not A Threat (Yet)

Google Voice is a problem on two fronts for Apple but it's not a threat.  

First, I've been using Google Voice on my G1 and I'm loving it.  If ATT folds under the pressure I'm hoping the FCC is bringing to bare, I'll love it even more on the iPhone.  So what if I'm using GV on the iPhone?  I will still love the huge app stores, the games, MobileMe integration (which I don't get on the G1), and other iPhone specific functions.

Second, GV serves to compliment MobileMe because let's face it, Apple needs to add more features to MobileMe.  Free SMS would be great.  Chatting would be even more awesome.

So, it's not a threat but GV creates problems for Apple.  One, bad publicity.  If you're aware of Apple's rejection of GV app, then you know what I'm talking about.

The other problem is that it highlights how behind the curve Apple is when it comes to cloud computing.  And it's very very far behind.  It's even behind Microsoft.  That's how bad things are for Cupertino in this specific mobile battle.

Right now, it's not a big problem because very few folks will actually leave the iPhone because they want access to a GV app.  In all likelihood, folks will abandon their iPhones on principle stemming from the GV app rejection.

But 2-3 years from now, Apple's minor GV problem today could become a huge one if it doesn't get going with a comprehensive cloud, VOIP, and other mobile agendas.

Apple Crossed The Line With Google Voice Apps And Will Continue To Do So

More and more, I believe Apple's dealings with apps that enable iPhone users to use Google Voice has some things to do with ATT but also something to do with some bad blood created by the threat Android is increasingly becoming to the iPhone and Chome OS' challenge to the status quo in the OS market.

Caught in the middle are developers.

Macworld posted an article about just this matter.  Kevin Duerr in his blog vented his anger over how Apple had treated his app first by pulling it from the app store, then refusing to offer him an explanation for the action, and creating a refund nightmare for him.

And he's right.  The refund was not due to a flaw in the app but Apple's unexplainable reason for pulling it from the app store.  And some users do want their money back since Duerr will no longer be able to provide support and updates.

The app, VoiceCentral had gone on sale in April and it was only when apps for the Blackberries and Android phones became available did Apple started acting this way.  Oh, yeah, Apple also rejected Google's official Google Voice app.

Duerr, like everyone else, believes ATT is to blame here.  ATT simply doesn't have to capacity to handle all the iPhones in the market.  For the most part, I have to agree but Apple cannot be happy with Android and Chrome OS as competition.

I'm sure Apple had a message to send Google as well.  Maybe.  I don't know with any certainty.  There are a lot of theories flying around the Internet.

Apps are either rejected for indecency or for duplicating an existing function on the iPhone.  Frankly, I don't see anything that VoiceCentral or Google Voice app has done to duplicate iPhone functions that existing apps haven't already done.

Let's examine it a bit here with some app examples.

• Skype.  Okay.  It makes calls over Wi-Fi but it duplicates the iPhone's telephony function.
• Fring.  Same as Skype.
• Yahoo Messenger.  AIM.  Other IM applications.  The iPhone doesn't have an IM app but it does have a SMS application.  If users are sending instant messages instead of SMS, when ATT is out of a revenue stream.

Those quickly comes to mind.  But there are others.  Suppose Apple starts streaming music through the iPod.  What happens to all the radio apps?  Right now, everyone is watching one app in particular.

Spotify.  Since it started streaming music to users (including myself), it has been considered as a competitor to iTunes.  Everyone is watching and waiting to see what Apple will do.  Now, some bloggers believe, given the bad press now with GV apps, Apple will think twice about a rejection.  Folks, if you believe that, you don't know Steve Jobs.  

However, for you mobile warriors with a legal background, what do you think?  A few more examples of rejections due to apps duplicating functions on the iPhone, can an anti-trust case be made?

This is not a subject I like writing about but Apple is wrong here.  I had hoped that Apple will evolve more liberally with app store policies over time.  It's been more than a year.  The app store has been wildly successful.  Millions of iPhones sold.  Still, nothing has changed.

Source:  Macworld, Duerr's Blog

Note:  If you want a Spotify account, which I highly recommend, visit Onxo for instructions.  It is not yet widely available.

Another Note:  Jailbreak, jailbreak, jailbreak, baby!

iTablet:

So, we don't know with certainty that the iTablet will be forthcoming but by all indications, it is.  If not for the sake of satisfying the mobile market, it is an evolutionary step in mobile computing.

But Macinstein doesn't think the iTablet would be a great mobile device at all.  It even goes as far as to say it's ruse created by Apple to make its competitors like Dell waste millions in research and development on something that will not work.

Well, if this tablet was coming from Dell, Acer, or Asus, I would agree.  But hey, this is Steve Jobs we're talking about.  Let's not forget that.  The iTablet will be coming from the folks who brought us OS X, Macbooks, iPods, and the iPhones.

For all the shortcoming mentioned in the post, it makes sense that Apple's brilliant designers and engineers would have thought everything through and patent the heck out of it to make sure it works. If it doesn't, trust me on this, Apple will not come out with a tablet.

So, no, it wouldn't just be a double-sized iPod Touch as simply twice the price.  Okay, maybe twice the price of an iPod Touch is plausible but it'll be so much more.  There is a lot we don't know about it.  As we get closer to the release date (which I firmly believe to be early 2010), there will be a lot of hype, rumors, and sleight of hands by multiple players, but I think at the end of the day, we'll be pretty happy that we mobile fans will have another Apple gear in our mobile arsenal.

Let's just hope Apple doesn't really call it the "iTablet".

Source:  Macenstein

Push Notification Via Safari

You might know by now that Apple, with the gun to its head, was forced by ATT to pull two 3rd party Google Voice apps and to reject the official app from Google.


I don't want to get into that.  I don't agree with it and Apple had to comply.  Fine.  Perhaps this was why Google developed Android a couple of years ago.  It's why we have G1, myTouch, and HTC Hero today, all running Android OS.  


And this exactly why Google is now pushing Chrome OS and, in doing so, pushing Webapps.  


Honestly, the wireless providers' days are numbered in terms of how they can have so much dominion over us.  One day, Safari, Chrome, mobile Firefox, and mobile IE will all be able to allow webapps to work like traditional apps.


When that day comes, good luck trying to block specific websites.  Verizon Wireless or ATT would be stupid trying to tell Apple, Android developers, or Microsoft to block some sites because they don't like the competition those sites offered.  If that happens, seriously, isn't that what China does now?


The only reason ATT can get way with this is because folks aren't making the anticompetitive connection.  Regardless, I hope Google succeeds with Chrome OS because it'll benefit us iPhone users as well.  Whatever features Webkit gains, Safari will as well.


So consider if Safari offers more traditional app features, Google would still be able to offer fully working webapps as their traditional apps.  That means push notification, being able to stay connected simply by leaving Safari running.  Calls, voice mail notifications, and incoming texts would all be pushed through Safari.

FT: Forthcoming Device From Apple To Change Mobile Entertainment

As if we didn't already know given the evolutionary changes and growth of Apple's mobile gear.  But if what Financial Times is report is in fact correct in the way presented in their exciting article, mobile folks, especially Apple fans, will be extremely happy.


I have indicated in the past that Apple is likely to introduce new products in early 2010 rather than late 2009 as there is virtually no need to do so given the strength of its already robust mobile lineup.  However, I have also indicated that I love being wrong and that we'll see this new mobile device, dubbed iTablet by many in the blogworld, as a larger iPod Touch.


There have been a lot of rumors generated late last week about something from Apple but I don't want to get into that.  However, given the strength in reporting financial news, I'll give FT the benefit of the doubt (though WSJ has just a strong reputation but they have been known to be wrong in the past).  


So, what is the Financial Times report?

• Tablet-sized device for this Christmas shopping season.  I'm still thinking 2010 but I hope I'm wrong.  Still, given Apple perchance for perfection, don't be surprise of the target of late 2009 is pushed back or my early 2010 prediction is also pushed back.  Until they've got it right, Apple will not put out an half-ass device.  And yet, they know people will be buying this up in droves.  What better than a paying public willing to beta-test your product?
• Apple and music labels are working on a new product that will be perfect for the tablet.  This includes an interactive booklet for music to entice buyers into purchasing whole albums.
• Apparently, prototypes have already been seen and tested as an entertainment executive was quoted as saying "It's going to be fabulous for watching movies."
• Watch out, Amazon and Kindle!  Literary publishers are trying to get in on the tablet.  As one publishing executive put it, the Apple device is to the Kindle as a color LCD TV is to an old black and white TV.  That's gotta hurt.  Perhaps, this is why Kindle app in the iTunes app store.  
• It will be priced between $600-$1000.  I'm closing that gap a bit and day it'll be $699 and $899.  This is in line with past Apple product pricing.  Expect this price to hold for a couple of years and drop as other competitors, like Microsoft's Zune, bring their own clones to the market.

There is something that does seem a bit off.  At the end of the article, it was mentioned that movie executives were not consulted.  I don't know what that really mean but it just sort of sticks out.  

So, there you have it.  Four quarter of 2009.  There are still a lot of questions and we'll get into it later.  We'll just let this one sink in a bit before going further.  

Source:  FT.com