iOS developer @Gojohnnyboi discovered some code in iOS 5.0.1 that could indicate iChat — Apple’s Mac OS X instant messenger client — functionality may be coming to iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch down the road.

Although the new iMessage feature in iOS 5 doesn’t hook into the same chat services mentioned in the code, it would make a lot of sense for Apple to ultimately streamline the iChat, FaceTime, and iMessage into a single service across Apple devices.

How soon you’ll actually see this on your iPhone or iPad isn’t exactly clear, but this at least suggests Apple has been experimenting with this on the iOS platform.

Source: @Gojohnnyboi via TUAW

iMessage is an iOS 5 messaging application which includes sending messages, photos and videos over WiFi or 3G. Messages can be pushed across all iOS devices that use the same account. You can even pick up on the conversation right where you left off when switching from your iPhone to your iPad or iPod touch.

MacRumors received some information today that reveals some new code has been added to OS X Lion’s iChat framework that points to integration with the iChat app and iMessage.

The “timeDelivered” and “timeRead’ fields indicate the tracking of delivery and read receipts for instant messages. These features, however, are not supported in any of iChat’s native messaging protocols, while the same features are offered in Apple’s iMessage protocol. These properties were also not present in previous versions of iChat prior to OS X Lion. We believe the only reason Apple would have added these properties was to build in cross compatibility with their new iMessage protocol.

[MacRumors]

This year at WWDC 2011 Apple announced iMessage, a BBM-like instant messaging service built right into the SMS/MMS app. They also built Twitter right into the OS, for clip sharing in Safari, Photos, etc. and come this fall, authentication for the official Twitter app and others. Last year at WWDC 2010 they introduced FaceTime, a video calling service that existed first in the Phone app, then later in its own app on iPod touch, Mac, and iPad. Back in 2002, Apple introduced iChat, an instant messaging service that eventually gained video calling and video conferencing support, as well as desktop sharing and more.

iMessages is proprietary and only on iOS right now. Twitter is proprietary but cross-platform. FaceTime is a collection of open standards that Apple has promised to release the specs for but hasn’t as of yet. It’s also iOS and Mac OS X only right now. iChat uses both proprietary (like AIM) and open (like Jabber) protocols, with different level of feature and functionality support depending on which you use (though you can use more than one). It’s Mac only, but the protocols can be used in other apps on other platforms.

iMessage and FaceTime can both use the same Apple ID, and I can launch into FaceTime via a button in iMessage, but they don’t really work together, not the way Skype calls and chat do, for example. Twitter is treated like a separate systems, and iChat is an island all its own.

I can’t iMessage someone on Mac or Windows. I can’t iChat someone on iOS unless they install a 3rd party app like BeeJive or AIM, and I can’t easily switch between text video/voice in the same app.

iChat on Mac OS X could conceivably become a blended iMessage and FaceTime client. Change iChat’s name to iMessage and have FaceTime calls as easy to launch from Mac OS X (and hopefully Windows one day) as they are on iOS. Add a similar way to switch back from FaceTime and things might “just work” better.

However, Apple seems to be improving the iChat app in Mac OS X Lion all on its own, with no iMessage or FaceTime support in sight. So that doesn’t look like an immediate possibility.

Hopefully Apple is working on this, and we won’t have to wait for iOS 7 and Mac OS X 10.8 to get a grand, unified messaging system.

The evidence that iChat video is coming with the 4th generation iPhone continues to pile up with iPhone OS 4 beta 2 released just last week.

More code reveals that the iPhone must be registered for video conferencing along with the possibility of the feature only being used via Wi-Fi and not 3G data. So those who had hoped for video chat using their networks 3G connection may be a bit disappointed.

ACCOUNTNOTREGISTEREDMESSAGE = “This device has not been registered for video conferencing.”;

IMAVCHAT

COULDNOTCONNECTNOREMOTEWIFI = “The video call could not connect because a remote Wi-Fi connection could not be established.”; IMAVCHATDISCONNECTEDNOLOCAL_WIFI = “The video call disconnected because the local Wi-Fi connection was lost.”;

And as an added bonus it seems as if Apple is working on integrating video chat with “tentpole” number 6, Game Center. From the code below it appears that you will be able to initiate video chats with other Game Center users.

IMAVCHATERRORNOSUCHPLAYERID = “No Such Player ID”; IMAVCHATERRORNOSUCHACHIEVEMENT = “No Such Achievement”; IMAVCHATERRORUNRECOGNIZEDGAMEDESCRIPTIONHEADERS = “Unrecognised Game Descriptor Headers”; IMAVCHATERRORNOSUCHGAME = “No Such Game”;

iPhone OS 4 looks to be more promising than we originally had thought. Any of our readers excited just yet?

[Mac Rumors]

With the launch of Apple’s iPad tablet and iBooks eBook purchasing and reading software, Apple has significantly rounded-out their device and content offerings, but TiPb can’t help but think a few iApp holes remain, namely iChat, iMags, iNews, iFeeds, and iBlog.

Some of these will likely resonate immediately, others we might need to explain our thinking, but either way what Apple gave us last week and the hype and hyperbole, expectations and exasperations, hopes and howls that proceeded and followed it shows just how much we all think and feel about the iPhone OS platform.

First things first. None of these ideas are new or novel. In fact, most of them have been mentioned from early on and mentioned a lot. We’re just looking at where the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad are today, and listing — or re-listing — some of the remaining, wickedly obvious, gaps in their apps.

Second things second. As much fun as we think an iPad version of Mac OS X’s Photo Booth would be, we’re not going to include anything that would require additional hardware like an iSight webcam. We want it, believe us we do, but we’re going to stick with what Steve Jobs showed us on stage last week… for now.

iChat

Seriously, where the [redacted] is Mobile iChat? While Mac OS X power-users might gravitate to third party solutions like Adium, Apple makes sure every one of their computers ships with iChat, and for mainstream Mac users, that’s still the go-to app. That it’s on every one of Apple’s computers, along with Mail and Safari, shows just how core IM (instant messages) are to the internet experience. Yet three generations heading towards four, and we’ve seen no sign of it for the iPhone — and now the iPad — other than the always plentiful Apple patent filings.

There are great 3rd party IM clients for the iPhone in the App Store, no doubt about it. Maybe if there was a Mobile iChat that wouldn’t be the case. There are no other email clients or browsers in the App Store by way of worst case scenarios (just embeddable mail and webviews). There are other camera apps and photo viewers, however, weather and stock apps, contact managers and voice recorders, so there’s a best case as well.

Apple already has the built-in Messages (formerly SMS) app on the iPhone. Maybe carriers weren’t originally keen on the idea of 1st-party threats to their utterly plush text message business but that ship has sailed. Build out or build upon Messages and give us iChat. Give mainstream users base instant message functionality out of the box, with typical Apple simplicity and elegance, and of course the background multitasking that would come with such status. Power users who want more, and are willing to switch to push-notifications, could find other options in the App Store.

And yeah, we’re not bringing up iChat Video because we promised not to mention hardware, but you know that they know they we know we’ll bring it up again at some point…

iMags

At the iPad announcement we got iBooks, Apple’s answer to eBook buying and reading, but what about iMags for magazines? As much as we love our eBooks, we like the idea of getting our weekly or monthly magazines delivered with just as much iTunes automagical goodness.

Going one strep further, how about an iTunes LP/Extra style format then that would allow easy and consistent eMagazines to be produced, seamlessly blending text, video, even music into something readers would be willing to pay for so that publishers can afford to create it. (And you bet we think an iLife ’10 with iDVD turned into a super-slick iTunes TuneKit development tool would be a great idea no matter which road Apple chooses to take). Just like indie music, it would let independent writers/publishers get into the game. iZine, if that doesn’t make you shudder.

Okay, maybe iTunes isn’t set up to handle subscriptions yet and that’s the current show-stopper. Apple never pulled that trigger for music and is apparently having trouble getting the TV industry to let them pull it for video. Even season passes for TV series aren’t really up to the level of a real subscription service yet.

But Amazon’s Kindle is already handling magazines and newspapers (which we’ll get to next), and as much as iBooks is an ePub answer to the Kindle Book Store, Apple and the iPad need an answer for eMagazines.

iNews

While iMags covers weeklies and monthlies, the dailies need a solution just as badly. iNews, or eNewspapers, or whatever is the appropriate term for digital content that “just works” its way onto your iPad at 3am every day — again just like the Kindle is already doing — is the other missing piece of the iBooks puzzle.

Sure, Apple has the no less than the New York Times up on stage showing off their prototype iPad app during the introduction, but hundreds of independent apps clogging up our devices — and the App Store — is a very un-Apple-like solution. While it would no doubt lead to tons of creativity and variety, Apple prides itself on simplicity and UI consistency. (Otherwise why not just sell the OS and let OEMs and do-it-yourselfers build their own Macs, right?)

Maybe Apple is just taking its time, starting off with books the way they started off with music in iTunes, and they’re already intending to add magazines and newspapers the way iTunes has added movies and TV shows. Sure, no matter how big they are, Apple is still only one company and they have to choose how to spend their finite engineering resources. Hopefully they’ll choose to spend some on those subscription services, because we can’t help but think they’d be killer, especially for periodicals.

iFeeds

Say what you want about desktop Safari RSS, but at least desktop Safari has native RSS. Mobile Safari pushes RSS out to a webapp so abandoned it still uses .mac in its URL (which Apple changed to MobileMe back in summer of 2008 with the launch of the iPhone 3G/iPhone 2.0). Just like with IM, there are a lot of great RSS clients in the App Store, and they do something Apple would likely not choose to do — sync with the 900lbs gorilla that is Google Reader. So, we hope they don’t go anywhere. But for casual news reading, a built-in Apple client, even a native extension to Mobile Safari would be nifty, if only and again for background multitasking.

See, on desktop Safari our RSS just updates in the background and new articles are brought down and ready and waiting for us to peruse immediately and at our leisure. App Store apps launch, contact Google Reader, check status, start to sync or populate a list view from web data, and then and only then can we start reading. (Or they just function as a skin for a WebApp and then we can just as easily add Google Reader proper to our Home Screen).

This one is a tougher sell, no doubt about it. Mainstream users don’t use RSS and a certain segment of geeks is moving from RSS to social networks like Twitter and Facebook to crowd-source and crowd-sort their news. The former is something Apple just doing it could fix, especially with a few pre-populated, and popular, feeds ready to go. The latter still strikes us as far too subject to happenstance (if you stop following for a couple hours to nap or watch a movie, a story that matters to you could be plowed away by several newer ones that matter more to others).

iBlog

And we can already hear you complaining this one is thinner than an iPod touch, but again bear with us. As much as the iPad, and to the same extent the iPhone, is focused more on consumption of content than creation, but as the iPad iWork apps themselves show, we’re going to need some creation, including for web-based services.

If iDVD is going to be reborn as an easy iTunes LP/iTunes Extras development tool, why can’t iWeb be reborn to better handle modern web 2.0 content creation? Rather than static pages, blogs and micro-blogs are the web site creation mediums of today. There are dedicated apps for several of the more popular blogging platforms already on the iPhone App Store, but they’re dedicated apps and the web is more distributed than ever.

Microsoft makes Windows Live Writer and on Mac OS X there are a couple great applications that let you write for many of the most popular blogging platforms. Apple’s been accused of not “getting” social media for a long time but it’s getting to the point where it just has to be gotten.

iLife ’09 for Mac contained iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iWeb, and (hidden away) iDVD. We’ve already seen iWork’s Pages, Numbers, and Keynote for iPad. We’ve seen Photos for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPhone. I’m sure many would like a multitouch GarageBand and iMovie (expanded from the iPhone’s trimming) as well as am iWeb 2.0 or iBlog that allowed for simple blog and micro-blog text, photos, and movie posting.

Conclusion

So that’s TiPb’s top five iApps we’d still like to see added to the iPad, iPod touch, and iPhone. Agree, disagree, or have alternatives or additions all your own? It’s still 2 months to the iPad’s debut at the end of March, and 6 month until we likely get the final release of iPhone 4.0, so let us — and Apple — know what you think!

As part of the responses to the FCC’s inquiry into the rejection of Google Voice from the iPhone App Store, AT&T stated the following:

As noted above, AT&T regularly reviews its policies regarding features and capabilities available through the devices we offer in order to provide an attractive range of options for our customers. Consistent with this approach, we plan to take a fresh look at possibly authorizing VoIP capabilities on the iPhone for use on AT&T’s 3G network.

This was couched in some legal arguments stating economists and jurists allow deals where one party’s core business is protected against adverse actions taken by another party — in this case AT&T is saying VoIP would hurt their revenue from voice plans, so it’s okay for Apple to protect AT&T from that hurt.

However, AT&T also says that while Apple agreed not to produce a VoIP app for the iPhone without AT&T’s consent, they had no obligation to “take action against” a third party app.

So, presumably Apple is not allowed to make a VoIP app unless AT&T says okay, but Apple’s just being kind to AT&T by not allowing Skype (for example) to use the 3G network?

And if AT&T is changing their mind and thinking of allowing a VoIP app, and the only VoIP app they say they’re allowed to allow is one by Apple…

Conspiracy theorists, where does that leave us?

In case you haven’t read it already, our editor-in-chief, Dieter Bohn, has an outstanding article up at sibling-site WMExperts highlighting his top 5 reasons Twitter is better than SMS (and vice versa).

There’s a lot of intertube fuss about SMS lately, as a recent New York Times article once again shone the spotlight on the disgustingly dirty price gouging (and potential fixing) that goes on when it comes to SMS rates in North America. Basically, SMS (at 160 bytes/characters) is ridiculously cheap for the carriers to transmit, no matter what the scale, and yet the prices have doubled from $0.10 to $0.20 on many networks over the last few years. Voice, by contrast, involves much more data and is much more “expensive” in terms of infrastructure costs. North Americans will pay ludicrous sums of money for “cheap” SMS but not for “expensive” voice, so the carriers take advantage.

Dieter points out that the cost, community, compatibility, control, and context of Twitter give it a clear advantage of SMS, even as the discoverability, dilution of quality, dropping 20 characters, downtime, and potential delays in notification (outside the US) make it still far from perfect.

Flaws and all, Dieter is moving towards Twitter (@backlon) and away from SMS. Am I going to do the same? I already have (@reneritchie) and without really considering it. But here’s the thing — I have considered that not only should I not have to consider it, I don’t think any iPhone user should. (Or any @theiphoneblog follower either!)

I mentioned in my return to the iPhone 3G Round Robin final review that one of the things I’d like to see for the iPhone is a Mobile iChat app, but really taken to the next level. BlackBerry PIN messenger is what puts the “crack” in CrackBerry.com and an always on, multi-tasking Mobile iChat client would go a long way to putting some in the iPhone as well. Beyond that, however, Apple is famous for being the one company that really understands something truly significant for consumer end users:

The interface is the application.

There’s already an SMS client on the iPhone, and guess what? It already kind of looks like iChat. If Apple stuck a Mobile iChat client on as well, it could look functionally identical. So why, then, would Apple need to add that client? Some Twitter clients looks functionally very similar to iChat already as well. Why, then, would we need separate Twitter clients?

From a user-perspective, abstracting an application away from the pipes that feed it is a huge win. Take Mobile Mail for example, you can setup a Gmail, Exchange, MobileMe, or other email account, yet the app itself looks and functions the same regardless. Add one account, take another away, and the user experience doesn’t change. This means that, behind the scenes, you can pretty much muck around with the pipes, improve them, swap an old one out for a new one, drop a troublesome one for a reliable one, all with very low impact on the front end — maybe even no impact at all. It’s transparent to the end user.

Now imagine there was a presence client on the iPhone — I’ll stick with calling it Mobile iChat to keep it simple. You set up your SMS account, your Twitter, your AIM, MobileMe, Jabber, Google Chat… whatever and then you have one consistent UI that elegantly handles and presents your conversations to you. If one pipe disappears, like Pownce, you just delete that account or foward to another. If a new pipe shows up, like BlackBerry announces PIN-like messenger for the iPhone (breathe Kevin, breathe!) you just add it in.

There are, of course, a bunch of reasons why this isn’t likely to happen, and lots of people who prefer to keep their cookies all in separate jars anyway. My personal belief remains, however, that this is the future, and the iPhone is the device that’s going to bring us the closest and the fastest to that future.

Of course, there will always be a place for “better” dedicated client apps that provide unique, rich features focused on a single protocol, but who knows, with push email, maybe all inter-personal text communications could eventually fold into a single unified, consistent, experience. It would, at the very least, be nice to have as a hyper-productivity meets connectivity option. wouldn’t it?

Monday we asked you “What’s the iPhone 3G Chip and When Will it Ship?“. Tuesday it was “What is the iPhone 3G Going to Look Like?“. Wednesday brought “What Surprises Will There Be in the iPhone 2.0 Software & Services?”. Thursday questioned “What 3rd Party iPhone SDK Apps Will Be Available Launch Day?” Today we want to know what else the iPhone 3G will feature, both now and into the future?

GPS is the biggie (right after 3G!). What about a front-facing camera? VGA screen? Stereo Bluetooth? Wireless N? Full-sized querty keyboard? … (Ha!) What do YOU think?

To give you some help, here’s a HUGE roundup of all the iPhone SDK 3rd party apps rumors. Epic-style. Because let’s face it, roughly 0.01 seconds after Steve Jobs pulled the first iPhone from his pocket back at Macworld 2007, and someone, somewhere, put aside their childlike sense of wonder long enough think: “Nice! What’s the next gen going to be like?”

Complementary, contradictory, obvious, confusing, all but confirmed or from left field via outer space, the rumors have flooded the internet ever since. It’s become almost impossible to keep track of them all.

Three days from today Steve Jobs takes Moscone Center stage for the sold-out WWDC keynote, and according to everyone and their newsfeed, announces the iPhone 3G. In eager anticipation, every day this week, TiPb wil be asking you to tell us what you think the next generation iPhone will be, from 3G to GPS, release dates to price points, colors to casings, 2.0 software to .Mac .Me services, and this weekend we’ll wrap it all up with a look into the WWDC/iPhone 3G Crystal Ball, and a roundup of the very best of YOUR predictions.

So come on, let’s get in on!

WWDC -3 and Counting: Hardware Features

As we mentioned before for purely cosmetic reasons, the first generation iPhone boasts a 3.5″ 320×480 display at 163dpi, a rear-facing 2.0 megapixel camera, 3.5mm recessed headphone minijack, 30-pin dock connector, speakers at the top and base, microphone at the base, accelerometer, light sensor, proximity sensor, top-mounted SIM slot, on/off button, mute switch, volume button, and home button. It’s also packing internals like quad-band GSM (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), Wi-Fi (802.11b/g), EDGE data, and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR.

But that’s all soooo 2007 now, isn’t it? What will Apple bring to the table for 2008? How will they not only surpass their own previous efforts, but tackle the plethora of feature-spouting iPhone-like devices their competition has been releasing as of late?

Let’s start at the beginning and work our way forward:

March 4, 2008: RBC Capital analyst Mike Abramsky predicted an iPhone 3G with higher def (HD?) video, voice capture, streaming HD video, and real-time GPS.

March 25, 2008: Digg founder Kevin Rose used his popular Diggnation internet video show to claim that the iPhone 3G would sport 2 cameras: one on back like the current version, and another on the front expressly for iChat video conferencing. Rose, however, had been spectacularly wrong with his predictions about the first generation iPhone…

March 27, 2008: Kevin Rose was back, back again, this time on Twitter where he claimed a source close to Apple told him the iPhone 3G would be released in June with GPS. Although not at the time, this one looked more and more credible as WWDC approached…

March 31, 2008: While claiming they would’a had’a need’a time machine to have emulated the iPhone’s design, RIM’s latest release, the Blackberry 9000 Bold, did raise the bar on some specs. According to Crackberry.com, who scored the first pre-release hands-on, it included UMTS: 2100 / 1900 / 850MHz, GSM: 1900 / 1800 / 900 / 850 MHz, GPRS, EDGE and HDSPA networks, GPS, and Bluetooth Stereo Audio.

For a company that makes its dough on email, offering BT stereo before media giant Apple was clearly a backatcha-for-ActiveSync challenge. And while Steve Jobs is notorious for not offering technology that doesn’t (yet?) meet his perfectionistic standards, will the iPhone be able to avoid A2DP any longer?

April 2, 2008: With an eventual — and unbelievable — $100,000,000 in advertising behind it, Sprint aimed (both in terms of design and market!) Samsung’s Instinct squarely at the iPhone, with some challenging specs like EVDO Rev A speed, GPS, Stereo Bluetooth, and mobile TV.

April 8, 2008: In one of the most obvious iPhone derived competitive offerings to date, Nokia promised the world the “Tube”. While feature specs were not discussed, Nokia already shipped smartphones like the N95 with whopping big 5.0 megapixel Carl Zeiss-lensed cameras, the ability to shoot near DVD-quality video, and vblogger-pleasing compatibility with mobile streaming video capture services.

Can Apple, which owns everything from Final Cut and Aperture to iMovie and iPhoto, afford to fall behind in the mobile production space? And if not, how far will they be willing to bump their own 2.0mp, non-video capturing camera?

April 10, 2008: iPhoneBuzz reported that they found strings in the iPhone 2.0 beta that revealed support for A2DP stereo Bluetooth, Bluetooth remote control, GPS (though not whether it was internal or via Bluetooth to dongle), and something to do with printers. If true, it was a gold mine of discoveries.

April 25, 2008: Engadget claimed a source with hands-on info that the iPhone 3G would include GPS, and a flush headset jack.

May 7, 2008: The iPhone turned out to be the most popular camera phone on Flickr, despite its relatively poor 2.0 megapixel implementation. Imagine what it could do with a lens bump and a better software set?

May 9, 2008: In what might have been one of the most feature-packed competitors to square off against the iPhone, HTC announced their Touch Diamond, which according to WMExperts came spec’d out with an ultra-sharp 2.8″, 640×480 VGA screen, tri-band (aka non-US friendly) HSPA 3G data, A-GPS, a 3.2 megapixel camera, and FM radio.

The iPod Nano already had a 202dpi screen, but would Apple go that high-end with the iPhone 3G?

May 14, 2008: Swisscome announced they would be selling the iPhone in Switzerland, and rumor had it it would feature video iChat, mobile TV, and GPS.

May 22, 2008: Gizmodo revealed that Apple had job postings up for both a camera engineer:

[W]ith responsibilities for evaluation, qualification, implementation and tuning of camera subsystems in iPhone products.

And an RF engineer:

Familiar with RF fundamentals and RF test equipments (spectrum analyzer, network analyzer, signal generator), hands on for wireless system validation automation. Familiar with PC and network architecture. [...] Design and qualification expertise with IEEE 802.11 [...] Knowledge about Bluetooth, 3G, UWB, WiMAX, GPS, Mobile TV and similar wireless technologies and/or experience with wireless module integration into PC system or consumer products is a strong plus. The system integration issues include: radio coexistence, platform noise, module and system power consumption.

Et tu, WiMAX?

At the same time, Apple Insider broke word on a “private” firmware update for “select developers” that included Geo-Tagging software, which often depends on GPS to add location data to photographs.

May 28, 2008: While still in beta, Google demonstrated their much-anticipated Android OS on an HTC Dream. iPhone inspired, Google advances the multi-touch UI and sensor interactions in many ways Apple will have to not only match, but surpass. And as everyone knows (and Microsoft has often used to their advantage), its almost impossible to market a shipping product against a vaporous competitor.

May 30, 2008: Apple Insider revealed a patent filing that could allow an iPhone with GPS and an accelerometer to predict when signal loss would occur and alert both the user, and anyone the user was communicating with at the time, with distance and speed specific cues.

In a separate filing, Apple detailed how improved Bluetooth functionality could allow the iPhone to help find other BT enabled devices, or even everyday BT tagged items such as your keys. (Not that it’s unwanted, but how about some BT stereo and peripheral — keyboard — support?)

June 1, 2008: Battle of the biggie blogs as Om Malik of GigaOm said GPS was a go:

[T]here is one thing that’s for sure: The new iPhone has Global Positioning System (GPS) built into it, thanks to legal requirements put in place by the FCC.

And Brian Lam of Gizmodo responded with a thanks but…:

No thanks. Don’t need it. I’m fine with the current location technology. It works for walking and that’s all I need it for.

June 3, 2008: Samsung’s SGH-i900 is detailed by WMExperts. Modeled after the iPhone but sporting an FM Radio. While very last century, it is a feature last centurions still request…

Your Turn!

So there you go, now it’s your turn. Tell us what features you think the iPhone 3G will pack. FM Radio? HD Video? Better Bluetooth support? Espresso brewer?!

And after you’re done telling us, don’t forget to head over to our iPhone Blog’s super Wait-a-Thon spectacular where you could win an iPhone 3G of your very own, whatever it looks like, on the very day it’s released!

Go back and read Part 1: What’s the iPhone’s 3G Chip and When Will it Ship?
Go back and read Part 2: What’s the iPhone 3G Going to Look Like?
Go back and read Part 3: What Surprises Will Be in iPhone 2.0 Software & Services?
Go back and read Part 4: What 3rd Party iPhone SDK Apps Will Be Available Launch Day?

Joking that the iPhone Risk map was getting a little crowded up in Europe… turns out not to be a joke anymore:

Swisscom on Wednesday confirmed it will begin selling Apple’s iPhone in Switzerland this year, possibly bolstering a recent report on the matter which also stated that the handset would arrive with video conferencing and other fresh features.

What fresh new features? As if borrowing from Kevin Rose’s twitter feed, GPS, bi-direction video iChat Mobile, and mobile TV.

Checking the score board:

Personally, I’m not sold on 2-way iChat yet, or Mobile TV unless Apple can break it out of the carrier-controlled sandbox in which it now languishes. This is a little too close to rumor-regurgitation for now. GPS, on the other hand, seems likely.

What do you think?

Read

TUAW’s code-scouring tipster is back with rumors on what could be found in an Apple iChatMobile app, and it’s set to jibber with some Jabber:

[a] new XMPP framework has been spotten in the latest iPhone firmware. XMPP refers to the open source standard developed by the Jabber community for instant messaging. Remember back in March when Apple announced it would support native instant messaging? In a nutshell, it looks like Apple’s new iPhone-based chat will be built on Jabber/XMPP. [...] Unfortunately, we’re told that this XMPP support remains in a private framework and will not be available to 3rd party SDK developers.

How (and if) this fits in with the recently discovered Apple chat-related patent filing, and/or (double if) the AOL concept demo from the SDK event, is anyone’s guess at this point, but one thing’s for certain: it’s getting interesting in iPhone IM land!

Ever-watchful Apple Insider brings word on yet another Apple patent drop. This one, published in March, sets the stage for the long anticipated — nay, demanded — Mobile iChat application.

Though the iPhone already includes a somewhat similar, though carrier-bound, SMS app, the need to move away from device-modal technologies (i.e. phone to phone) to more open protocols (i.e., phone to computer to console, etc.) like Instant Messenger is compelling. In answer, Apple has proposed an interface that builds on the SMS app in significant ways:

[T]he ability to start new messages by searching through the contact list or typing the first few letters of someone’s name. Users can also see a past chat history and remove individual conversations from the list. [...] [A] dedicated text field for entering new messages, another would have typed text appear directly in a new message bubble and would replace the text entry box with a list of suggested words.

While the patent could still, technically, be used for SMS or MMS, Apple Insider maintains the former is not mention, while IM is captioned on the image filings.

Personally, I’d love me some first party (multi-tasking?) IM. But how does this relate to the already demoed AOL app? The two work together on the desktop, does that portent a mobile relationship as well? Or is Apple planning on running over them here?

Of course, this could also join the enormous heap of Apple patents that have yet to find any real world application.

What do you think?

Digg and Pownce founder and web 2.0 darling Kevin Rose, during the latest Diggnation podcast, made the following prognostications about the eventual 3G iPhone (via Apple Insider):

[Kevin Rose] claims that a 3G version of the iPhone hardware due in a few months will employ two digital cameras situated back-to-back — one on the front side of the unit behind the transparent touch-screen, and a second one on the back of the handset as it exists today.

Rose also conjectures that this may be why Apple has limited background processes in the current SDK: to prevent competition to their upcoming iChat Touch application.

iChat Touch, according to Rose, will allow full-on video conferencing via high-speed HSDPA between 3G iPhone users and desktop iChat users alike.

As to how reliable Rose’s predictions may be, Apple Insider reminds us:

In the week’s leading up to last year’s iPhone introduction, the Digg founder cited sources in saying Apple would introduce the handset with a slide-out keyboard, two separate battery compartments, and make it available for both CDMA and GSM networks — all of which turned out to be false.

So, um… er… yeah — we’ll take this with a shovel full of salt for now.

Still, the idea iChat Touch with video is exciting and functionality I’d love to see on the second generation iPhone. What do you think?