DaringFireball's John Gruber checked with his sources following the recent iPad 2 2048 × 1536 Retina Display rumors and they say it is too good to be true -- iPad 2 will sport the same 1024x768 resolution as the current iPad.

Its display may be improved in other ways — brighter, better power consumption, thinner, perhaps. Maybe it uses the new manufacturing technique Apple introduced with the iPhone 4 display, which brings the LCD closer to the surface of the touchscreen glass — making it look more like pixels on glass rather than pixels under glass. But my sources are pretty sure that it’s not 2048 × 1536 or any other “super high resolution”.

He pegs iPad 2 as an iPhone 3GS-style update -- better internals like CPU, GPU, and RAM (aka Apple A5?) but the same screen resolution.

It's a much more realistic, if much less fun prediction given current technology. Gruber's "little birdie" sources have also proven accurate in the past. We'll know for sure when Apple does their unveiling.

[Daring Fireball]

Daring Fireball often blurs the line between carefully concealed wink-nudge leak and flat out facetious commentary, so with that in mind John Gruber has this to say about the 4th generation iPhone (which still won't be called iPhone 4G!):

• Apple A4-family system-on-a-chip. Nothing on whether that would be the ARM Cortex A9 multicore CPU with brand new PowerVR SGX GPU we've been drooling over, however.
• 960x640 display. That would be bigger than even the bigger DROID Google Android phone, but fit perfectly with the mediocre pixel-doubling announced for current iPhone apps on the iPad's 1024x768 display.
• Front facing camera. Which would mean all those iChat Video rumors we've been hearing about forever would finally come true, albeit after the HTC EVO 4G broke the barrier.
• 3rd party multitasking in iPhone 4.0. Yeah, that one we've got covered going way back. Which just don't know how they're going to implement it yet?

Again, this could just be Gruber cracking wise at the WSJ's Verizon-rumoring expense. However, a lot of this might also be considered obvious things Apple "has to do" to stay competitive. Yet Apple hasn't exactly been pushing the hardware specs since the iPhone 2G back in 2007. Steve Jobs was rumored to have said the next iPhone will be an A+ upgrade. Is the above a good start?

UPDATE: Engadget says they're hearing it will launch on June 22 and be called the iPhone HD. Hey, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Last night on Twitter noted Apple raconteur John Gruber of Daring Fireball posited that "iPad is going to be a bigger deal than iPhone."

The iPhone has been a big deal because it successfully mainstreamed the existing smartphone category. The iPod touch accounts for roughly 30% of current iPhone OS devices and is the heir to the iPod which successfully mainstreamed the also already existing MP3 player category.

To be a bigger deal, the iPad will have to not only mainstream the computing appliance, but create the category.

Can Apple succeed at that?

Yesterday at Macworld two events helped clarify something I've been discussing with Dieter for a while now -- Apple, the iPhone and iPad, and closed vs. open systems, control vs. chaos. These two events were a presentation by John Gruber of Daring Fireball concerning the 10 biggest problems faced by Apple, and a brief conversation with Leo Laporte of TWiT about Google Buzz.

As part of his Round Robin BlackBerry review, Dieter departed on a rant about BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) of epic proportions. A closed communications protocol, he argued, was untenable. BlackBerry users create incredible amounts of content in BBM (yes, chat is content) but it's all completely closed off and owned by RIM. If you leave BlackBerry, you can't take your BBM content with you. If RIM ever disappears, all your BBM content is lost. Something like Gmail on the other hand, works across platform and if you switch from BlackBerry to iPhone to Android, you enter your Gmail account and everything is there. Since you can access it via standard protocols like POP and IMAP, you can also make local copies and upload them to a different service (i.e. upload your mail to a non-Google IMAP folder).

Laporte made a similar comment about Twitter and Facebook. If either Twitter or Facebook were to fail, all your status updates, all your wall posts, all your friends and those you follow and/or follow you would be gone.

I don't know if Google Buzz will prove to be an open protocol and system for sharing status, location, and relationships, and certainly it's implementation shows signs of the typical Google "release now, fix later, polish never" model, but something needs to.

And this brings me rather circuitously back to Apple and the iPhone. As much as a certain segment decries Apple as "closed", in terms of protocols they're remarkably open. They use IMAP for mail, and open-sourced CalDAV and CardDAV for calendaring and contacts. They use WebDAV for web directories and WebKit for Safari. iChat supports most IM protocols, including Jabber. They use BSD Linux and the Darwin kernel for the core of Mac and iPhone.

Apple is generally built on top of open technologies, and one of their core strengths is melding that open architecture with tightly controlled (i.e. proprietary) user interface layers (and developer APIs, and App Store review processes).

For some, that last part is an absolute deal breaker. But they have Ubantu and Open Moko. (Yes, even Android is closed -- you can't muck about with Gmail or Google Maps apps). For mainstream users, however, the front end, the user experience, "just works" to the point where it's become a cliche.

I said it previously in my Round Robin summation, to use Google you must give up privacy, to use Apple you must give up control. (I don't even want to think about what I'm giving up to use Google on Apple!)

So proprietary interfaces to open technologies -- how does that work for us? What happens when we use something not controlled by Apple?

John Gruber suggested AT&T as an example. Indeed, he listed it a one of Apple's problems. Now, some people get great AT&T service while others have connection problems that have become near-legendary. Either way, it's hurt media and mainstream perceptions about the iPhone.

Gruber also mentioned Big Media (movie and TV studios, music labels) as a problem. They want to charge more than the market will bear (certainly enough to make free-as-in-torrent an alternative) and make less available via iTunes than via a retro 1980s corner video store.

Is it a coincidence that some of the main aspects of the iPhone and iTunes that Apple has absolutely no control over are some that cause the greatest amount of user frustration?

(The App Store and its review process mostly create developer frustration, and Gruber listed this as a problem as well, though one that's slightly improving since the holiday shut-down).

So, we come back to and down to Apple liking to control the user-facing aspects of the iPhone (and iPod touch, and soon, iPad) but using and promoting open standards for a lot of the technology underneath. While this approach might clash philosophically with some users (and again, Android, Palm, etc. aren't open, they're just more open) and practically for others (power users who want the control themselves), its proved remarkably effective for casual, mainstream users, and for power-users willing to give up some control for a better experience.

Except for that part about AT&T and Hollywood, but then those are controlled with little concern for user experience...

Windows pundit and iPhone user Paul Thurrott, on the prospects of an an Apple iTablet, after a briefing with Lenovo:

I spent about an hour and a half meeting with [Lenovo] this morning and while I am charitably described as a ThinkPad fanboy, the truth is, they just make the best notebooks on earth. And now they’re getting even better. It’s dizzying. I posted a bit about this yesterday, but there is so much going on here. In fact, their near-final version of a tiny notebook with a breakaway tablet screen absolutely kills anything Apple could possibly announce later this month. It’s not even close.

Daring Fireball's spot-on reaction:

Um, OK

If it's being shown at CES, I'll try to stop by and get a second opinion

Daring Fireball's John Gruber often "guesses" what Apple will be releasing, and those guesses are sometimes dead-on-accurate, but when it comes to the iTablet/iSlate, Gruber says Apple's invoked a full on pre-January 2007-like "cone-of-silence". Still he's written up an interesting estimate of what, in his opinion, and iTablet just might be:

I say they’re swinging big — redefining the experience of personal computing.

It will not be pitched as such by Apple. It will be defined by three or four of its built-in primary apps. But long-term, big-picture? It will be to the MacBook what the Macintosh was to the Apple II.

I am not predicting that Apple is phasing out the Mac. (On the contrary, I’ve heard that Mac OS X 10.7 is on pace for a developer release at WWDC in June.) Like all Apple products, The Tablet will do less than we expect but the things it does do, it will do insanely well. It will offer a fraction of the functionality of a MacBook — but that fraction will be way more fun. The same Asperger-y critics who dismissed the iPhone will focus on all that The Tablet doesn’t do and declare that this time, Apple really has ****** up but good. The rest of us will get in line to buy one.

Gruber makes the kind of sense that does here. Apple will produce a large-sized, mainstream-targeted device that excels at handling the media iTunes excels at delivering, combined with the same type of (though not the same UI for) the ease of use the iPhone's multitouch technology and user experience wowed us with in 2007.

If they're making one. Wink. Wink. Nudge. Nudge.

Last week we covered the analyst accounts that Apple's iPhone was more profitable than Nokia's handsets. Since Apple makes high margin on one premium phone, while Nokia has a range of featurephones and smartphones, including low-to-no margin ones, it didn't seem too unlikely. Joe Wilcox, however, broke out his abacus and begged to differ, saying no they weren't, and everyone was stupid for thinking they were. John Gruber then tapped Calculator on his iPhone, looked at GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and non-GAAP numbers, and said the estimates were within reason. Wilcox updated his original post, decrying the use of non-GAAP numbers, and re-asserting his original conclusion.

Who's side are we on? Why, the audiences' of course, with popcorn, hotdogs, and spicy drink in hand. It's not like either Apple or Nokia give us a cut of the winning profits, and though we love our iPhones a lot, we'll take a blog v.s blogfight any time.

[via TUAW]

While previous rumors had Apple announcing iPhone video tomorrow at WWDC 2009, Daring Fireball's John Gruber has just put up his predictions and, at least in code name form, they're going with "iPhone 3GS" -- though they don't offer what the "S" stands for...

In the past, Daring Fireball's predictions have at times seemed closer akin to inside information, so it's worth paying attention to. In terms of specs, Gruber is sticking with what he previously predicted:

significantly faster processors, twice the RAM, and twice the storage. I expected prices to remain the same as the current lineup: $199/299 for 16/32 GB, respectively. The video camera is going to be a major selling point. [...] battery life: 15-20 percent longer than the iPhone 3G.

As to the oft rumored iPhone nano/mini, while he does see Apple eventually doing a distinct iPhone nano model, much like the iPod nano, for now:

I would wager heavily on [the iPhone 3G 8GB becoming the $99 iPhone] — that the new iPhone 3GS models will not replace the 3G, but rather assume the flagship position while the year-old 3G slides down to the second spot in the product lineup.

On the subject of the equally oft rumored iTablet, Gruber thinks it's real, but not yet ready to be announced.

In less than a day, we'll all know for sure!

Daring Fireball has posted a bitingly satirical look at Apple's iPhone App Store review process which, like the best of comedy, is firmly rooted in both tragedy and truth. That Apple hasn't posted clear guidelines for developers is frustrating enough. That they apparently haven't imposed them on their own internal staff raises the flabbergast bar to dizzying new heights.

With 35,000+ apps and a billion downloads Apple is well on their way towards building that next great platform. Until they fix the app approval process, however, that building is a house of cards.

Enough of the choir preaching. Here's Gruber bringing the painful funny:

MONDAY MAY 18: The dude who wrote that game with the iPhone icon seems very upset. Says that the iPhone image is used to explain that the user must tilt the device in order to play the game, and so how can he show this visually without using an image of an iPhone. And he has a list of other apps already in the Store which use similar graphics. I reply with the exact same message as last week, word for word. Spend the rest of the day playing Flight Control.

Read the entire Excerpts From the Diary of an App Store Reviewer via Daring Fireball...

Business Insider rumormongers that Apple might be considering some limited form of multi-tasking, perhaps as early as iPhone 3.0, which would allow 3rd party apps to run as background tasks. They point to two possible models:

1. Apple might allow users to select two apps that can run in the background.
2. Apple might selectively allow some apps to run in the background. We assume that developers could apply for permission to run in the background, and that Apple might approve or deny them based on the resources they need and how well they behave with the operating system's stability.

Daring Fireball steps up to throw a combo of water and fuel on that particular fire:

I heard something very similar from a decent (but second-hand) source back in January during Macworld Expo. What I heard then was that Apple was working on a vastly improved dock for your most-frequently used apps, and that there’d be one special icon position where you could put a third-party app to enable it to run in the background.

Gruber also rightly points out that the iPhone 3G's 128MB of RAM is likely the constraining factor to current generation multitasking and that won't change with the iPhone 3.0 firmware. If reports of at least 512MB of RAM in a 3rd generation iPhone are to be believed, however, this could be a much more compelling and powerful feature.

A dock that slides up like a slot-limited version of Google's Android app shelf maybe? And one that grants background permission to anything placed inside it? Yes please.

Someone told Daring Fireball that Apple not only asked Google to remove the multi-touch from the Android/HTC T-Mobile G1 smartphone, but also to remove the 3.5mm headphone jack.

The first part was reported earlier and makes the kind of sense that only tricky mega-corp coopetion can make (iPhone eyeballs are more valuable to Google than the G1's multi-touch at this point). The second part... not so much. Specifically, Daring Fireball's source mentioned Apple's use of the remote buttons on the headset to control media playback as the reason for Google avoiding the jack entirely on the G1. (Note: while this sounds familiar, a Google search didn't turn up any links for Apple patenting anything associated with such processes, so if anyone can point us towards that info, please let us know in the comments).

Other smartphones have long used the 3.5mm headphone jack, and since the G1 is hardly a media powerhouse (it doesn't even include a built-in video app), there's little reason to believe HTC couldn't have included a non-remote, standard 3.5mm jack.

(Aside: Our editor-in-chief, Dieter Bohn, has managed to confirm that both the BlackBerry Curve 8900 and Pearl both make use of some type of headset based media control, so there we go...)

Chris Ziegler over at Engadget Mobile weighs in, calling the entire Apple/Google story from VentureBeat FUD, and the sourcing on the 3.5mm piece sketchy, and while admittedly an unnamed Android source, absent corroboration, doesn't pass the traditional media test, here's the other thing:

HTC seems to love the ExtUSB in lieu of 3.5mm headset jack. It's not just the G1, but an increasing array of their smartphones that are -- and will be according to the 2009 HTC roadmap that was leaked -- abandoning 3.5mm for the ExtUSB.

So, we're not sold on this story yet, how about you? Does it seem likely Apple talked Google out of a 3.5mm jack, or that HTC just plain doesn't like them and never considered it?

I must admit, I've stopped using NetNewsWire on my iPhone because I've just found it unmanageable. What was an awesome fire hose on my Mac just threatened to drown me on the much smaller machine. Enter Daring Fireball's John Gruber with some awesome tips on making NetNewsWire on the iPhone far more functional:

What I want in an iPhone feed reader isn’t just a little bit different than what I want in a Mac feed reader, it’s a lot different. So what I did last week was start over from scratch on the iPhone. Rather than going through my full list of feeds and turning some off, I turned them all off, then went through and re-enabled about 20 feeds — the ones I like best, with the highest signal-to-noise ratios, and which would be most enjoyable in those I’m bored, give me something to read moments.

Now NetNewsWire is both snappier for him and more relevant to a mobile experience.

I tried it and I'm loving it. If you give it a try, let me know how it works for you!

UPDATE:

The New York Times gets clarification from Opera (via Daring Fireball):

“We stopped the work because of the prohibitive license,” to Mr. von Tetzchner wrote in an e-mail.

Turns out it was an internal project.

ORIGINAL POST:

So we, along with half the interwebs, picked up a paraphrased comment by Opera's president that pretty much indicated Apple had rejected popular mobile browser Opera Mini from the App Store.

Well, John Gruber over at Daring Fireball did some digging and found out that it just ain't so:

My understanding, based on information from informed sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employers is that Opera has developed an iPhone version of Opera Mini, they haven’t even submitted it to Apple, let alone had it be rejected.

On Monday, TiPb Senior Editor Dieter Bohn debuted his new bi-weekly feature, TiPb of the Avalanche, by asking about the iPhone App Store and the "Long Tail" business model.

Looks like he's not alone. PCalc developer James Thomson (via Daring Fireball) recounted his struggles with Apple's new policy of listing Apps by original release dates, ignoring update dates, and forcing older Apps to the frozen hinterlands of the last few pages in a list growing well past 5500. Under the old model:

Sales started to slow down over time, but with each of the 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 updates they went back up into the stratosphere as PCalc moved to the front page of the Utilities section again.

And now?

As it stands, the App Store is too crowded to find anything if you don’t know exactly what you are looking for by name.

So while, according to Apple Insider, the App Store may still be climbing faster than iTunes Music did, GigaOm is pishing the posh on the iPhone bump in general.

During Apple's Q4 conference call, Steve Jobs said that the App Store would reach 200 million downloads today spanning over 5500 Apps in 62 countries. How will Apple's (continuing?) tweaks on App Store organization help or hinder developers moving forward? And will they, as Dieter is suggesting, have to start putting as much time, money, and effort into marketing as they do coding? Or are there no easy answers?

RIM calls it "ClickThrough" and introduced their version with the Blackberry Storm. While we here at TiPb were initially dubious, Crackberry.com was apparently right about the Storm as the Big Sites loved it quite a bit. Still, we never saw Apple adopting it, and it's scroll-click metaphor, to the iPhone, but it looks like they may have already put a similar concept to use in the new MacBooks set to be announced today. Daring Fireball has the spoiler alert:

The new trackpad is similar to the Air’s, in that it is bigger and supports additional multi-touch gestures. But unlike the Air’s, the MacBook Pro’s new trackpad is made of glass, and is a button itself. You just press and it clicks. This is not like the current software option where you can enable “Tap to Click” in the trackpad preferences, but instead a glass trackpad that acts as a physical button, with a click you can feel. Sounds odd, but I hear it’s very cool in practice.

TiPb will be live meta-blogging the Spotlight Turns to MacBook's event today, which starts at 1pm EDT/10 am PDT. See you here!

Daring Fireball's John Gruber, in an attempt to get to the bottom of the PodcasterGate's latest controversy, namely Apple reportedly slapping "NDA" (Non-Disclosure Agreement) on the rejection notices and discussion there off, confidentially polled developers and came to the following conclusion:

My conclusion is that as [redacted] up as this entire situation is, both with the App Store rejections for “duplication of functionality” and NDA frustrations, it does not seem as though Apple has changed its policy regarding whether rejection notices are confidential.

Indeed, some Mac (but not iPhone) developers reported all their communications from Apple, going way back, bore non-disclosure language. This latest wrinkle does indeed appear to be inconsistent legal notices from different Apple developer reps, rather than any substantive change in response to PodcasterGate.

Still, resentment levels among iPhone developers are still soaring, and due to the NDA, the public displeasure ain't nothing compared to what's building internally.

We recently covered the new OpenClip project, and expansion of what was first demonstrated with MagicPad, and we liked both their implementation and their moxy in trying to pip Apple to the cut and paste post. Not everyone was as entirely impressed as us, however. John Gruber of Daring Fireball questioned whether or not the developers were really respecting the App Store SDK agreement. Since OpenClip aware applications write to their own sandbox'd Documents directory, but read the last-modified chunk from other applications Documents directory, Gruber considers it more of a loophole, and cites Apple's iPhone OS Programming Guide:

Not simply that no other application can write to, but which no other application can access. That this restriction is not yet enforced at a technical level (such as is the case with an app attempting to write outside its own sandbox) does not mean it’s permitted.

Worse yet, Gruber points out that the current Beta 4 of the upcoming 2.1 firmware DOES enforce complete denial-of-access to other application's Documents directory:

The OpenClip demo apps, which work as advertised on iPhone OS 2.0.2, do not work in the current 2.1 beta, because apps are no longer able to read or even see other apps’ sandboxes.3 To be clear, this change is clearly not in response to OpenClip; Apple began seeding the 2.1 betas with these tightened sandbox restrictions before OpenClip debuted, and the iPhone OS Programming Guide has stated all along that apps can’t “access” the contents of other sandboxes.

However, I'm not entirely certain any of that matters. OpenClip, based on my understanding, was never intended to be a long-term solution, merely a proof-of-concept to show that cut, copy, and paste could be done in an elegant manner on the iPhone, to keep a spotlight on the continued lack of cut, copy, and paste support from Apple, and to encourage the discussion of the issue and implementation.

In that regard, I think they've already succeeded.

C'mon. A day without a MobileMe post is like a day without rain. Or something. So after yesterday's John Gruber vs. Om Malik showdown, former Apple insider Chuq Von Rospach has strapped on the gloves and joined the fray -- in impressive fashion.

Says Chuq, after joking that Jobs is likely walking the MobileMe halls with a flame thrower round about now:

Gruber nails this (see below). MobileMe is a tiny thing compared to iTunes. Apple gets it, and executes it amazingly well. That this release was botched isn't about Apple not having a clue, but about the MobileMe people either blowing it (I can think of any number of scenarios -- scaling it hard). The ultimate failure seemed to be more capacity planning mistakes than anything else, if I'm guessing right. but the ultimate failure was not being willing to tell Steve "we aren't ready" and taking that heat. They thought they could release and make it work, and guessed very wrong (or thought they were in good shape, which is worse).

The entire post is a fascinating read -- chock full of insights, especially about new Apple VP of Internet Services (iTunes + MobileMe + App Store) Eddy Cue, whom comes off looking like a boss just a little to the right of Darkseid...

Om Malik says Apple is clueless about scaling MobileMe:

There is no-unified IT plan vis-a-vis applications; each has their own set of servers, IT practices and release scenarios. Developers do testing, load testing and infrastructure planning, all of which is implemented by someone else. There’s no unified monitoring system. They use Oracle on Sun servers for the databases and everything has its own SAN storage. They do not use active Oracle RAC; it is all single-instance, on one box, with a secondary failover. Apparently they are putting web servers and app servers on the same machines, which causes performance problems.

John Gruber retorts, with the US' #1 online music retailer firmly in his corner:

But the iTunes Store does gangbuster traffic and has a terrific track record for uptime. The message I read from yesterday’s reorg that put MobileMe under Eddy Cue (Apple’s VP for iTunes) is that MobileMe could and should be as responsive and reliable as the iTunes Store.

The crazy thing is, MobileMe should have been an iTunes-learned breeze for Apple in terms of meeting service levels, given their pedigree. But then iTunes uses WebObjects (which I believe is old school Java-based) and MobileMe uses SproutCore (which is all dressed up in Ajax-y 2.0 objectivity), and the pretty much disastrous July 11th launch, which took down both iTunes iPhone activation, and slammed the MobileMe servers into weeks of problems, show something clearly is different with the new kit on the block.

Hopefully Cue will bring some of the iTunes luster to MobileMe, but only time will tell. What do you think? Which blog wins this round?

Mac nerdery stalwart John Gruber over at DaringFireball has put together a very interesting essay about how iPhone Calendar syncing has evolved from firmware 1.x (1.0 - 1.4) to firmware 2.0, and how the current iTunes syncing differs in functionality from syncing via Apple's MobileMe service.

From welcome improvements to frustrating choices, from new methods of use to evolving work-arounds, Gruber ultimately comes to the ultimate question:

Whither the “digital hub”?

While iTunes originally served as the one-stop location for all syncing and sync settings, MobileMe now works outside the iTunes universe, but does not offer the options (e.g. selecting individual rather than all calendars to sync) iTunes does, nor does the MobileMe pref pane.

Is there a way for Apple to cleanly present a unified place to manage all iPhone syncing, with a robust set of options?

My vote remains iTunes. When MobileMe is in use, keep the settings enabled, and pass the preferences along to the "cloud". That keeps data, media, and commerce all in one place, with one interface, in a familiar context. Just "push" choices of calendars, contact groups, etc. back up to MobileMe.

Like a moth to a flame or a Blackberry addict to email, I am drawn once again into the train wreck that is Flash on the iPhone. This time it's courtesy one Robert X. Cringely, and it's a brain bender!

Cringely says:

It seems obvious to me, however, that there is only one real reason why [rumors circulating the National Association of Broadcasters show suggested] Apple would sell off its professional applications [like Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Shake, and Aperture] and that’s to avoid antitrust problems when/if Apple buys Adobe Systems as I predicted at the beginning of the year.

Gruber responds:

I Think Cringely Is Off His Meds Again

Daring Fireball's John Gruber goes on to say that while Apple may (or may not) sell off its Pro Apps, it would only do so to downsize and maintain focus, something buying Adobe would pretty much be the opposite of.

Personally, I think Apple stands to benefit immensely one day from controlling the media pipe end-to-end, and part of that control is the high end content creation tools, the Pro Apps. That's Apple end game, the media hub and all its satellites. And if you want that, you don't go selling off your launch vehicles.

What do you think?

While the interwebs stroke themselves into a furor over rumors that AT&T might just subsidize the iPhone 3G down to $200, Daring Fireball's John Gruber once again asks that he be allowed to retort:

So says one report, using one anonymous source, from Scott Moritz, a “reporter” with an appalling track record regarding Apple and the iPhone. The same Scott Moritz who reported in July last year that Apple had cut back its production order on iPhones based on a “trading note” from Miller Tabak, a note which, it ends up, didn’t actually exist. And, as we know now, Apple went on to sell more iPhones than expected in 2007, not fewer.

Speculation ensues as to whether or not the AT&T exclusivity extends only to the current iPhone, and not the so-called iPhone 3G, and whether or not AT&T may want to take a price hit to keep Apple close. Gruber, however, quickly points out:

This comes so close to uncovering the obvious and glaring problem with a $200 AT&T iPhone subsidy, but, alas, Hesseldahl and his keen economic mind walk right past it. The problem is this: why would Apple allow AT&T to sell iPhones for half the price of what iPhones cost in Apple’s own stores (including this one)?

What do you think?

John Gruber and the Macalope have made an artful science out of reasonably, logically, and methodically skewering the most pathetic punditry and junky journalism surrounding Apple and the iPhone.

Case in point is Gruber's recent and rather succinct dismantling of Simon Brocklehurst's complaint that Apple chose Objective C as the language behind the SDK. And while he certainly doesn't need my help, there are a few points I'd like to add.

First, anyone (but especially Simon) who thinks Apple just now (or even recently) decided to create an SDK for the iPhone knows little about SDKs and less about the polish and maturity easily observed in even the beta SDK Apple released at their special Roadmap event. The briefest look at actual developer blogs and tweets -- including developers with substantial experience in jailbroken iPhone apps -- would see the flood of remarks on the maturity of the beta SDK. Bottom line, if Apple hadn't been planning the SDK for a long time (perhaps since the launch itself) they have a hidden supply of killer engineers capable of truly mind-boggling delivery.

Second, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, while I don't know anything about Brocklehurst's background, quoting Jonathan Schwartz indicates some level of Java-centricity. By serendipitous contrast, I just this week had a conversation with a developer at work who was being brought onto a new project. Since he'd recently done a lot of C++ and PHP, he was looking for a new language with which to stretch his skills. He wanted to try Ruby or Python, wanted to see what Rails could do. Gruber's right, good programmers can (and want to) program and can (and want to) stretch themselves to do it (even when it's not so far a stretch). Good programers who want to make good iPhone apps won't think twice about adding Objective C to their skill set.

Third, the iPhone/iPod halo is clearly helping Apple gain traction in their Mac market, and there's no reason to think the iPhone SDK won't help Apple gain traction for Objective C and Cocoa via Cocoa Touch. Apple has shown time and time again -- to the point of frustration on some occasions -- that it is a future thinking company. Getting a bunch of convenience-oriented programmers now by putting out a Java or C++ iPhone SDK pales to insignificance when compared to the mindshare Apple could gain by delivering a powerful, delightful Object C/Cocoa Touch development environment (and experience) to the uber-keen developers of the next generation, whose newfound skills -- and more importantly, tastes -- will flow right back into the Mac and future Apple products.

While Apple certainly fumbles the ball on occasion, this time they look to be smashing their way clear to a touchdown.

Sorry Simon.

As part of his piece on the continuing confusion surrounding the $99 iPhone SDK program acceptance/pending/rejection letters, Daring Fireball's John Gruber also dropped this very interesting nugget about the equally continuing and confusing situation surrounding the apparent Apple ban on multitasking and background apps:

[A] source confirmed to me that the iPhone AIM client AOL demoed during the iPhone Roadmap event does not cheat by continuing to run in the background — it quits when you switch to another app, but doesn’t log you out of AIM automatically. Such a client can’t notify you of IM messages from the background (a la the way the iPhone notifies of you SMS messages), but when you switch back to the AIM app, messages you missed should appear. Be wary of claims that “An app that does X is impossible without background processing.”

If accurate then that, as they say, is that in terms of any hope for multitasking apps before June. If Apple didn't grant AOL "special dispensation", they certainly won't give any to Johnny "Next Big Social Perpetual Ping App".

But is a non-background running AIM of any use to you? A welcome break from the constant connection demands of IM? A way to keep AIM second class to an eventual Mobile-iChat Touch app? Smart thinking on Apple's part or just a train wreck in the making?

Following up on the cryptic "I Hate You - Don't Leave Me" letters Apple sent out last week to many (all?) would-be iPhone developers who had coughed up the $99 for a certificate all signed and legal, Daring Fireball reports on whether or not anybody has made it in already:

I believe there are a small handful of developers who are sort of “in” already, but they were hand-selected by Apple. Perhaps, as with the ones who came on stage during the event to demo their “two weeks worth of work” apps, they were involved before the SDK was even officially announced.

But everything I’ve heard suggests that last week’s email from Apple was sent to everyone who applied for the program. I.e., there are developers who’ve been let in through the back door, but no one has gotten in through the front door yet.

John Gruber goes on to quote two sources who've told him that Apple has received over 10,000 applications alone for the $99 package and couldn't meet demand for certificates this fast if it wanted to (and no one seems sure whether they do or not, nor how badly).

Massive over-reaction by the Twitterati? Yet another example of Apple's dwindling communications skills? And will we have to wait until the June (30th at 11:59pm?) release to know for sure?!

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?

John Gruber skims through the iPhone updated HIG (Human Interface Guidelines) and reveals the following:

Only one iPhone application can run at a time, and third-party applications never run in the background. This means that when users switch to another application, answer the phone, or check their email, the application they were using quits. It’s important to make sure that users do not experience any negative effects because of this reality. In other words, users should not feel that leaving your iPhone application and returning to it later is any more difficult than switching among applications on a computer.

Will there be a function to preserve state between App uses? (The way iTunes remembers what song you were playing and where you were in that song) Or will each App have to load fresh each time? (The way photos gives you the album chooser, rather than the last photo/state screen upon launch).

Treo users have been stymied for years by lack of true preemptive multitasking, while Windows Mobile has been criticized for letting Apps pile up like splattered bugs on an speeding windshield. But functionality like background music playing, downloads, data (i.e. email checking now that it's push) seem like no-brain must have'ems. What's the deal Apple? And what do you think?

To say in the very least, the 1.1.1 version hasn't been popular with many folks. A lot of people think that Apple went over the line in bricking iPhones, but that opinion isn't shared by everybody. Rainer Brockenhoff, for example, doesn't think that the firmware update was malicious in nature, that it was technical in nature. Erica Sadun of TUAW agrees:

"If they wanted to brick hacked iPhones, they could have done a much better job of it."

Sadun, speaking in an interview with Wired, thinks that the iPhone 1.0 firmware was a rush job, something done to get it out the door in time for the deadline that Jobs imposed when he announced the iPhone in January. Wired speculates that the 1.1.1 firmware update is a "[from the] ground-up rewrite," with many security features like CRC checksums and new firmware encryption schemes.

And the 1.1.1 firmware hasn't been all roses. There are many reports of problems with the update (exhibits one, two, and three). Sadun goes as far to call it "messed-up" and "botched." Our own Dieter Bohn had a few agonizing hours trying to figure out how he destroyed the audio after the update. All of it makes this Jobs quote from the NY Times more awkward:

"You don't want your phone to be like a PC... The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn't work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers."

Similarly, you don't want to have hacked your iPhone and applied the update and then you go to make a call and it doesn't work anymore. And I think a lot of the people that bricked their iPhones won't be rushing out to buy another one in spite of this helpful spokesperson's advice:

"If the damage was due to use of an unauthorized software application, voiding their warranty, they should purchase a new iPhone."

It sounds like a lot of people may have applied the unlocks that are causing trouble with the 1.1.1 update. Apple risks losing a lot of the good will press that they've enjoyed so much of for free over the past few years, and I'm curious to see how they handle this current fiasco.

I'm speculating idly, but I wonder if Apple is looking to fix their mistake by posting another firmware update that fixes some of the repoted installation and sync problems, and de-bricks some of the unlocked iPhones. The last time they were getting negative press like this (the price cut), they posted their $100 early adopter bit, and they were pretty dang quick about it. How Apple ends up dealing with bricked iPhones could say alot about whether that price cut was a reaction to events or a carefully scripted set of events itself.

If you hate the Marker Felt font in the iPhone and are willing to go the extra mile to remove it, then John Gruber is your man. Just so we're clear, this does void your warranty. But it goes without saying that if you really hate marker felt, you won't care.

figure 1:component video cable support

It looks like the Composite AV cable and Component AV cable both officially support the iPhone. This is definitely an exciting new development.

figure 2: composite video cable support

Apple is hosting another media event today. iPod Nanos are expected, and they look drastically different than the current nano. Not everyone is happy with the new look, but from what I can see it looks pretty functional. I think I'm withholding judgment until I've seen what all of their iPod lineup looks like.

Meanwhile, ThinkSecret basically guarantees touchscreen iPods. They also say the iPod nano, featured in the above Gizmodo link, will pack some seriously updated iPod software, and it will be great; it will be revolutionary. Or evolutionary. One or the other, really.

Please note that the screenshots from ThinkSecret above include albums from the Beatles that aren't yet available in the iTunes Store.

Microsoft always seems to pop up with a little snippet of news on event days like this. I think they do this so they can play the 'sour grapes' role of the day, now hints that making a Zune phone is 'not unreasonable.' This is more or less the opposite of what CEO Steve Ballmer said at the D5 conference, so I'm glad to see that they're still talking from both sides of their mouth. They're champs of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Emphasis on the 'uncertainty' part here. And now you know why they play the sour grapes role -- it gets them in the news. But everyone knows somebody that can't tell the difference between negative attention and positive attention, and it's not like there's surging demand for a Zune phone, though I'm sure Windows Mobile users would be happy for the extra functionality.

But back in focus, there's no shortage of hype -- read a paragraph and you can see why Apple's stock is so volatile after announcements. Taken from Jeremy Horwitz of iLounge:

I seriously believe tomorrow is going to be different. I think it’s going to be the day when iPod die-hards, technology geeks, and mainstreamers alike are all going to be genuinely excited by what Apple is going to show. In short, if the release of the iPod mini signaled the start of Apple’s dominance of the digital music player business, and the nano and 5G signaled the end for most of its small competitors and beginning of its video initiative, tomorrow is going to be the final nail in the coffin for Microsoft, Sony, and the bigger players as well. Yes, even with their recent announcements. The only people who will be upset are those who aren’t already on the bandwagon, or the few who (sorry, NBC) jumped off early and got hit by it.

You know though, the scary thing is that he could just as well be right. John Gruber thinks so, so it must be true.

And in other news, T3 reports that a 3G version of the iPhone will be announced today. I think that's a pipe dream; there's no way Apple would update a flagship product 2 months after it came out for the first time. That would flat-out anger the almost-1-million purchasers of an iPhone here in the U.S.A.

Of course, any time Apple updates iTunes, it's always possible that they will also update the iPhone, so I'll be keeping my ear close to the news to see what they have planned. There's plenty of speculation for iPhone Games and ringtones. And it's not just the iPhone Ranch that's expecting it, it's also the New York Post.

Huh, Chris Usher of TIME snapped Karl Rove with an iPhone. And they look pretty silly in Minnesota Twins hats. John Gruber of Daring Fireball mentions the need for a caption contest. He's absolutely right.

What do you think they're saying or playing on the iPhone?
"Beastie Boys... hm, no... Beyonce, Black Eyed Peas, Bloc Party, I dunno, what do you want to listen to? Beyonce okay?"
"You can't trust Sid Hartman for Twins baseball analysis. Only Aaron Gleeman."

I'd love to see what folks come up with on this one.

after I did the update, I was suddenly able to route the iPhone’s music output through my car iPod adapter, which the iPhone had previously recognized only as a charger, even though it acted as both a charger and an audio adapter for my iPod.

I haven't heard a peep out of Microsoft for quite some time; not really since Mossberg's D5. Nonetheless, Microsoft is in the news today.

Babygotmac is disgruntled that the iPhone doesn't have Exchange support and posted a response to an earlier post by John Gruber of Daring Fireball, himself repudiating cruft posted in the Wall Street Journal. What the article at babygotmac doesn't seem that he realizes is that the iPhone does have support, from a certain point of view: you can sync iCal and Address Book (and Mail.app too, but that's not relevant to this discussion) to an Exchange server. From there, the iTunes sync will copy over anything from Exchange you want. So really, what he's griping about is the lack of push, not a lack of Exchange support. It's a minor niggle, sure; but it's an important niggle. It's not like there's no way to get data from Exchange on the thing. Other than that, it's a great article, and I agree that push would be most welcome.

So what I'm getting at here is that I hope the rumors of push and Exchange support in the iPhoneare true. Apple licenced Exchange protocols (MAPI) for Mail.app, Address Book, and iCal already. Apple would just have to program the iPhone apps to understand MAPI well, and maybe get more licenses for the additional iPhone apps.

Lastly, there's an article at eWeek's Microsoft Watch that talks about what Microsoft should learn from Apple and the iPhone (with some frosty commentary from the iPhoneBlog, where I found it). There are some things Microsoft could learn from Apple, sure (UI, UI, and UI -- I'll hopefully be downloading that shell before the lawyers take it down), but the article doesn't seem to address one of the larger tangles that Microsoft faces:

1. Microsoft Needs Transparency So They Don't Freak Out Their Customers
2. We are not Microsoft's primary customers
3. that would be OEMs and carriers and phone hardware makers, etc.
4. Man Those Guys Hate Surprises
5. We Love Them (case in point: birthday presents!)

They hate surprises because surprises tend to affect the bottom line, and not generally in a positive way. So, Microsoft, at least to a point, has to make sure they are pointed in the right direction to make sure their customers are happy. You don't just slog off the customers that got you to 90% of the market.

Apple, of course, is a consumer-directed company, so they don't really worry about the enterprise customers so much, which gives them a ridiculous hype advantage. But again, it's still a great article.

Gruber wrote in a previous article discussing the third iPhone ad:

"The Maps app somehow knows where we are: my guess is that it’s like the Mac OS X Weather widget, with a preference setting for a default zip code. (Keep dreaming if you think Apple has secretly added GPS behind the FCC’s back.)"

He's absolutely right about GPS and the FCC -- Apple would have to re-certify the device via the FCC if they wanted to add GPS functionality to the iPhone, and we would find out about that when the FCC published their results.

My hope is that Apple made the Google Maps app GPS-capable, so I could use my bluetooth GPS device for mapping when I traveled. I don't have it with me unless I'm in the car, though. So if the GSM localization rumor is true, well that's just an added bonus.