What's better than a couple of well versed, well argued technologists presenting deeply reasoned and sharply insightful, fundamentally different but equally challenging, views on a critical topic? Well... nothing. They're just hard to find given the intertube collective's penchant for rewarding punditry and link baiting. Sometimes, however, we're lucky enough to find a mix of both knowledge and provocation.

Cases in point: here were have noted Windows Super-Siter, Paul Thurrott, and accomplished Roughly-Drafted Apple Insider Prince McLean each presenting their own unique, multi-part perspectives on MobileMe.

Ready for the blow-by-blow? Continued after the break!

Says Thurrott, about how he "can't imagine why any Windows user would ever sign up for this car crash":

unlike the mature Exchange product, the initial version of MobileMe is half-baked, with glaring functional holes that make it less than desirable than it could be. And that's especially true on the Windows side--the focus of this review, of course--because Windows users get dramatically less for the $99 a year that Apple is charging than do Mac users.

Says Dilger by way of contrast to "Microsoft's proprietary MAPI RPC (Messaging API using Remote Procedure Calls), used by Exchange Server to deliver messages between the server and Outlook client software, was designed only for use over a secured LAN and does not provide the security required to pass messages over the open Internet" :

For an initial offering, Apple's MobileMe really gives even the entrenched enterprise-grade competition a run for its money with its low consumer price tag. MobileMe's low price is all the more interesting because nobody is currently even competing in the consumer market for comprehensive push messaging. And despite the attention Apple has been getting for the rough rollout of the service, MobileMe is now working smoothly enough to be well worth the $99 retail price.

As much views as reviews, there's some technological and historical gold hidden deep within the punditry, and I recommend reading both, provided you have the time and can muster up the inclination.

Roughly Drafted recently proposed that neither impending 3G nor poor supply chain management were to blame for Apple Store's lack of iPhone stock, but rather the international gray market for unlocked handsets.

Now, based on a post from Infrageeks, they're back with a look at how Apple could replace some carrier kick-back revenue with .Mac subscription revenue, if El Jobso saw fit to beef up the service and better tie it into the iPhone.

Our own Chad Garrett has already made the case for .Mac syncing via the iPhone, and iPhone Alley, (via TUAW) has said it's coming, so what's Dilger's take?

Integrating .Mac services into its iPhone and iPod Touch mobile platform would not only make the devices more valuable and competitive, but would also add a layer of ongoing subscription revenue that would enable the company to more profitably sell unlocked iPhones at regular prices in emerging markets where demand is off the charts. Rather than paying a smuggler $800, Apple could sell customers the iPhone at the regular $399 price, bundled with a two year .Mac subscription for another $99 a year. This would rapidly develop Apple’s software service revenue and allow the company a significant budget for investing to keep the services up to date and valuable for users.

What value would $99 bring? The details are in the full article, but include network data sync, file sharing, back-to-my-mac, blogging, hyperblogging, a reputation system, community profiles, secure identity services, marketplace, privacy management, data sharing/networking, and subscription music.

Would those services be worth $99 a year to you? Would they be worth giving up the carrier revenue for Apple? What do you think?

We've covered gaming here a few times already. Now Roughly Drafted Magazine's Daniel Eran Dilger chimes in with another of his highly detailed (and highly partisan) articles, this one looking at Apple's iPhone and how it compares to, and seems poised to disrupt, the established portable gaming platforms:

The most obvious competition the iPhone faces is the leading Nintendo DS and the distant runner up, Sony’s PlayStation Portable. Incidentally, both gaming units appeared on the market in late 2004; the iPhone benefits from being nearly three years younger, and therefore based on considerably more modern technology. However, gaming isn’t an easy market to break into.

Dilger covers whether or not a convergence device like the iPhone can even compete against dedicated gaming handhelds. He runs down the current console market and Apple's thus far discreet approach to gaming on iPods.

From unit pricing to hardware specs, Dilger makes his case that while the iPhone is expensive, its also a generation ahead in terms of performance, and despite the price, offers features above and beyond gaming.

Potential smart phone rivals, including Micrsoft's XNA and Nokia's N-Gage 2.0 are also discussed.

What's Dilger's conclusion?

As Apple migrates its 150 million iPod installed base toward the iPod Touch and iPhone, the company will pair a large user base with enthusiastic development efforts. Users will get the gaming environment as a free addition to the phone, media player, and web browser they purchased. Conversely, that also means that lesser phones with plodding web browser capabilities and simplistic media playback–as well as dedicated games consoles that really only play games–will have a hard time competing against the new platform. That should make for an interesting 2008.

Personally, I've considered a PSP in the past but could never justify the (then very high) cost for something I wouldn't use all that often. But I have my phone with me all the time, and if I could get games as innovative as the DS (or Wii!) and as high quality as the PSP on my iPhone, it would be a no brainer. And maybe Apple's counting on that as a way to "trojan horse" its way into gaming.

On a very deep level, using the accelerometer to fly an X-Wing into the Death Star is something I think the iPhone was forged to do. (You listening, Lucas?)

Developers want them their multitasking. They want them popping up, one after the other, like Agent Smith replicants in the Matrix sequels. What? Viruses incarnate from poorly conceived follow-up movies is a bad analogy?

Not according to some leading Apple pundits.

Witness Daniel Eran Dilger's iPhone 2.0 SDK: The No Multitasking Myth from Roughly Drafted Magazine:

By limiting the amount of background processes running, the iPhone’s OS X can offer more of that available RAM to the foreground application, along with a less distracted processor. The iPhone is not a general purpose computer; it is primarily a phone, browser, and iPod. Due to the restrictions imposed by the SDK, it will also be a credible gaming platform and pack the power to run significant productivity applications, all without giving up the ability to be a responsive phone, browser, and iPod. Other devices can’t make that claim.

Sure, Dilger is sometimes considered on the extreme-end of Mac'tivism. Let's see what Daring Fireball's John Gruber has to say when he takes on One App at a Time:

Why has Apple imposed this limitation? Easy: the iPhone is severely resource constrained. Battery, RAM, and CPU cycles are all severely limited. If third-party apps could run in the background, all three could suffer. RAM would suffer for sure; all running apps consume memory. The iPhone has just 128 MB of RAM, and no swap space. CPU performance and battery life would suffer when background apps do something — and if they’re not doing anything, what’s the point of keeping them running? I noticed a significant increase in battery life after I switched the Mail app’s auto-checking interval from 15 minutes to 60 minutes. That’s just one app.

Okay, but they're not developers. They don't understand the needs, the passion. But then developers aren't pure consumers either and developers don't always understand consumer needs. Sometimes developers are so busy with the abstract coolness of what they can do, they don't always stop and consider the colder reality of whether they should.

For every OS-changing Switcher app, there are dozens of buggy, crash-inducing WinMob and Palm fetishware. (As I can personally attest to, when even major apps from major developers rendered my Treo unusable).

No developer goes out there with ill-intent (malware aside), but their concern is app-level, not device or OS level. That's where Apple comes in. The overall user experience isn't the developers concern, nor should it be. It's Apple's concern, and right now Apple is imposing that concern via no-multitasking guidelines.

Note: John Gruber, quoting Hank Williams, also gives us The Flip Side of the Multitasking Argument. (Hit up the Roughly Drafted link above for some excellent back-and-forth between Williams and Dilger in the comment section as well.)

UPDATE: Gruber follows up in Foot, Meet Bullet, a point-counterpoint with Ian Betteridge.

What do you think? Is the ban on multitasking good or bad for the general user-base (i.e., our moms!)? For power users? Will Apple make exceptions for certain big developers (like AOL for AIM)? Will they relax the policy after the initial development rush is over, the space shakes out, and only cooler, more seasoned and reasoned heads remain in the game? Will some crafty devs will figure ways around the rules? (creativity thrives under constraint!). Or will things just stay the way they are?