Toshiba is yet another company launching yet another Android-based tablet trying desperately to differentiate themselves and get a little attention by having some fun with iPhone and iPad users.

So I thought I'd have a little fun back. Launching a super-secret Word Lens-like iPhone app that automagically translates BS into English, I went to the Toshiba Tablet site, was redirected to their "iOS doesn't support Flash" site -- wait, what? Really? -- then watched as the letters re-arranged themselves in augmented reality glory to give me a more accurate reflection of the device's true capabilities.

The "entire internet" isn't achieved by simply adding Flash to WebKit. Flash isn't even a part of most of the internet, just the web. Even the "entire web" includes more plugins than just Flash, like Silverlight and the Flash of the previous decade, ActiveX.

So while it would be nice to have a Flash player on iOS, it would be even nicer if companies like Toshiba spent less time making silly sites targeting iPad users and spent more time making fantastic user experiences to woo iPad users away (and force Apple to work harder to woo them back).

Otherwise they're just proving Tim Cook right.

(Actual Toshiba screen shot after the break).

There's a legitimate argument to be made for leaving the iPhone and going to Android, but Newsweek's Dan Lyons (aka Fake Steve Jobs) utterly, bitterly failed to make it last week in his column on switching from Apple to Google's mobile platform.

It was so outlandish I wrote most of this up and then decided not to use it, but a combination of slow news day (US holiday) and some of the switcher and technorati commentary that's followed made me reconsider reconsidering. So here it is. And before you start calling me an "Apple fanboy" or apologist, I'd preface it by saying we have one heck of an Android team here at SPE, led by Phil Nickinson, and each and every one of them could have nailed a switcher article with style and grace -- what Newsweek ran did just as much a disservice to Android as it did the iPhone.

Okay, so Lyons feels the new version of Android 2.2, Froyo, "blows the doors" off the iPhone OS. Only Froyo hasn't shipped to consumers yet, just like Apple's next generation operating system, iPhone OS 4, hasn't shipped to consumers yet. (We'll see the final version of iPhone OS 4 at WWDC next Monday.)

Flash is one of the first things Lyons mentions. Froyo will support it, Apple has said it will decidedly not. Apple's point is at least understandable given their usual behavior. Google's reeks of being reactionary and tactical. Apple is a controlling company exerting control by not allowing Flash. Google is a company that has championed open web standards suddenly throwing full throated support behind a proprietary plug-in which is not open. If anything, I'd of expected Google (and even more so Palm) to take the lead against Flash and towards HTML5.

But politics makes strange bedfellows.

Lyons says Froyo beats OS 4 because it supports tethering (which he lumps in with the separate but admittedly far more interesting mobile hotspot service), and Apple and AT&T do not. He's halfway right there. Somewhat. The iPhone has supported tethering for almost a year, since iPhone OS 3.0 shipped in June 2009. AT&T has chosen not to offer it. And guess what? AT&T could easily choose not to offer Android 2.2 tethering either and just strip it out. Or they could choose to offer it and charge for it. So could any other carrier. Case in point, mobile hotspot for the EVO 4G on Sprint will cost you. The pipes belong to the carrier, you can't complain bitterly about Apple's penchant for control when one of the issues you're complaining about involves an area where users suffer due to the lack of Apple control.

I use free iPhone tethering on Rogers HSPA 7.2 all the time. It's fantastic.

Froyo's ability to let you buy songs over the air (OTA) and download them directly to your phone is likely awesome. It's been awesome on the iPhone since OS 3.0 as well. Tap iTunes Store, tap the song you want, and it downloads directly. Apple thought it was important enough to give up the $0.99 price point for and it's nice Lyons finally learns about it via Google I/O nearly a year later. Streaming songs from your music library is also great in Froyo, and something iPhone OS leaves for 3rd party apps, which previously included Simplify, and app bought by Google, likely to power their streaming. Smart move.

Why doesn't Apple do this directly? I'd like them too as well. Now that Google has removed Simplify from the App Store, maybe they will. Maybe it will involve the iTunes.com service they're rumored to be working on. Either way, right now it's not there. Fair point.

Lyons lauds Google's tone towards Apple at Google I/O. The tone where Andy Rubin likened Apple to North Korea. The tone where Vic Dundotra said Google developed Android because they "faced a draconian future where one man, one company, one carrier would be our future." -- which was utterly laughable considering Google bought (not developed) Android 2 years before Apple announced the iPhone and 3 years before Apple announced the App Store (which Google CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board of directors!). Never mind Google's position in search and online advertising is far, far scarier than Apple's tiny share of the smartphone market.

Google didn't come off as mature or professional in any of those statements. They came off as frightened and duplicitous, and it was disappointing given the strength and growth of Android.

A proud, straightforward Google would have admitted that both open and closed models have their good and bad points. Apple's control gives them a remarkable user experience but results in frustration for segment of their developer community and user base. Google's open platform gives them amazing diversity but results in fragmentation (not legacy) that also frustrates a segment of their developer community and user base. There's no magic model. Everything is about making choices. If that makes Apple North Korea it makes Google any of a number anarchistic, warlord-strewn territories. Hyperbole is unfortunately just another double-edged sword.

He also trots out the Q1 results of Android outselling iPhone in the US. Where the iPhone is on one carrier and Android is on almost 4 (we don't really count that AT&T Backflip, do we?). Where the iPhone has been on the market since the previous summer and Verizon had just given the then-brand-new Droid a huge marketing push. Where users on Verizon desperate for an iPhone that still hadn't gone CDMA, and not willing to go Storm, had not competent touch-screen rival other than Android. In markets like Canada and the UK where the Droid (Motorola Milestone) competes directly against the iPhone on the same carriers, the results haven't been the same. That's another difference between Apple's "one phone" and Google's "many phones" model -- there's no direct comparison.

Lyons finishes with a bizarre diatribe against Apple and Steve Jobs and another conflation of AT&T into his argument against the iPhone.

The reality is Apple and Google (and others) are giant corporations who keep control over what makes them money (Apple hardware and ecosystem, Google search and advertising) and use open, free offerings to compete in areas that don't make them money. Neither are good or evil, neither are better than the other.

There's a legitimate case to be made for someone switching from iPhone to Android -- deep integration of Google services, especially in the US where Navigation and Voice are included, CDMA options in the US, a less regulated application market, form factors that include a keyboard, etc.

Lyons just doesn't make that argument. He doesn't even try.

[Newsweek]

Over the last 5 weeks of the 3rd Annual Smartphone Round Robin, the editors of our sibling sites, Casey from AndroidCentral.com, Kevin from CrackBerry.com, Matt from NokiaExperts.com, Dieter from PreCentral.net, and Phil from WMExperts.com have all had their chance to review TiPb's flagship iPhone 3GS. And we've just had to sit here and take it, the good and the bad, the raves and the rants. Well, it's week 6 now, baby, and TiPb gets to retort!

PreCentral.net's Dieter Bohn

Week 1 saw our Editor-in-Chief, Dieter Bohn, this time representing PreCentral.net, return to the iPhone he's reviewed about 5 or 6 times already, and... he was remarkably fair and I'm kind of sad there's nothing much to pick him apart over. Thanks for nothing! One of his negatives is something I've been thinking about for a while, though:

I will admit to being a little tired of the iPhone's design. It's iconic and singular, but honestly it doesn't feel as 'high end' as it once did. Not that the Palm Pre or Pixi is the picture of luxury, but sometime soon Apple will need to remember that phones are fashion and fashion changes.

iPhone 3G was indeed a departure from the original iPhone 2G; it lost the aluminum and gained a new, curved-for-thinness form. And people got really upset their cases didn't fit any more, their docks didn't fit anymore, and accused Apple of changing just to force people to re-buy all their accessories. Then the iPhone 3GS came out, new model same as the one before, and people got really upset that it wasn't refreshed. Fashionistas complained one could tell they had the new model. Both the iPhone casing and the iPhone home screen wouldn't be hurt for an update, but Apple won't win either way.

As for Dieter's conclusion:

We try not to pick winners in the Smartphone Round Robin, but rather talk about user needs and preferences. If you need apps and music, right now your choice is iPhone. If that's not big and you care about openness and multitasking, webOS has a serious leg up. What's sort of amazing is that most users don't need to dismiss either out of hand.

I'd add the mobile web to that. iPhone Safari still hasn't been exceeded and there's a reason iPhone-optimized sites are still what other mobile WebKit clients want to pull. The point itself is spot on though -- iPhone is owning the app and media space while BlackBerry owns messaging, and Android, Palm, Nokia, and WinMo battle it out over "openness" and "in-between". Multitasking we might get in a future update (iPhone 4.0?) but it's tough to see Apple loosening their ties on the App Store until and unless competition forces them to. Geeks and philosophers notwithstanding, some users and some developers prefer the level of trust a "gate-keeper"-style store provide (though Apple could certainly do better on the consistency side).

WMExperts' Phil Nickinson

Week 2 brought us Phil Nickinson, editor of WMExperts.com, and again he was frustratingly fair. He also raised some good food for thought:

Some of the best conversations surrounding smartphones these days have to do with Apple's singular vision. It designs the phones. It keeps a tight fist on the manufacturing process. It largely controls the marketing of the devices. Even the act of selling an iPhone is controlled by Apple. Want to use the iPhone? You have to connect to iTunes at least once. Apps? Only (official) way to get them is through Apple's App Store. Everything, at least at some point, must pass through Apple. Do not pass Go, head directly to Cupertino.

I've been toying with the over-simplification that iPhone involves surrendering control to Apple in exchange for user-experience, Android involves surrendering privacy to Google in exchange for free services, and BlackBerry involves surrendering serenity to RIM in exchange for constant connectivity. There's no perfect device or perfect model; everything is a compromise, and for a large swath of users, that's a good deal. They don't want to control (or have to worry about managing) their device -- they just want to easily use it.

Phil's conclusion:

We don't believe in iPhone killers. That's a phrase that was coined by writers who couldn't think of any other arguments to make. No, we're not looking for Windows Mobile 7, if and when it's announced and later released, to "kill" anything, save for maybe the bad taste that Windows Mobile 6.5 left in a lot of mouths. But even that isn't entirely fair. Microsoft announced Windows Mobile 6.5 and for the most part delivered exactly what it promised. No more, no less. A stopgap to hold things over until WM7.

Actor and gadget aficionado Stephen Fry uproariously so elegantly phrased:

Does anybody seriously believe that Android, Nokia, Samsung, Palm, BlackBerry and a dozen others would since have produced the product line they have without the 100,000 volt taser shot up the jacksie that the iPhone delivered to the entire market?

That the iPhone jumpstarted a complacent smartphone industry in 2007 is undeniable, as is the impact its made since. In that context, the media contrivance of "iPhone killer" makes sense. Until something makes that same original-iPhone-in-2007 level leap, it's likely the media will keep comparing everything to the iPhone. Steve Jobs was recently rumored to have said Google's Android wants to "kill" the iPhone, and likely the Windows Mobile team does as well. They have to if they want any hope to be competitive. No doubt the iPhone G4/4.0 team at Apple wants to kill the iPhone 3GS/3.0 as well. That is one of the keys to Apple's success.

AndroidCentral's Casey Chan

Week 3 had Casey Chan, editor of AndroidCentral.com share his thoughts on the iPhone 3GS, and forget the conclusion, he starts with the bang:

Ah, the iPhone. For better or worse, the iPhone has become the starting point for many consumers looking to buy a smartphone. In a sense, it's become the standard for everyone to measure themselves against. Because of its position at the forefront of consumer's minds and the fact that it's in everyone's pocket, that's completely fair. But because of Apple's sometimes senseless decisions in dealing with all things iPhone, it leaves the rest of us a little uneasy.

Our own Chad Garrett likes to say the iPhone is the first smartphone for everyone upgrading from the RAZR and there's some truth to that. With the iPhone, Apple mainstreamed the smartphone -- they took it from a power device for power users with a powerful requirement for tweaking, managing, and messing around with, and carefully packaged a subset of important features for the masses. That means that, for any particular user -- and especially for a power user -- there's a high chance that subset doesn't include an important feature.

That's Apple's modus operandi, however. They'd rather start limited and add slowly. They'd rather leave something out completely than add in something they don't think just works well enough. They're masters of always leaving something else on the table for the next update. And they're laser-focused on those features they consider essential for the user they're targeting.

And yes, it drives us all nuts, even as they've sold 70,000 devices on the iPhone OS platform and used it to familiarize everyone with the next-step in multitouch iPhone OS UI -- the iPad.

CrackBerry.com's Kevin Michaluk

Week 4 was our best frenemy forever, CrackBerry.com's own Kevin Michaluk and he embraces the same yin/yang theory about iPhone/BlackBerry as TiPb:

I've said it many times over the past two years, be it in blog posts, on our CrackBerry podcast, or to individuals asking advice on what device to buy, that if you want the absolute no-compromise best smartphone solution that you keep a BlackBerry in one pocket and an iPhone (or iPod Touch) in the other. Though both Apple, RIM and every other manufacturer and platform in the smartphone space for that matter have the aim of developing the one device you need (in other words they're trying to be both Yin and Yang), I still think as of now it takes two devices to have Best of Class everything. A device like the BlackBerry Bold 9700 is the ultimate communication and productivity tool, which excels in areas that matter both in enterprise (security, deployment, IT management) and to people who run their business and their lives depending on the phone, maximizing every minute of their day (one-handed speed of use, battery life, push everything, etc.). Apple hit the market with a compelling touchscreen experience that's both intuitive and enjoyable to use that fits into the Apple ecosystem of products and services (ie. iTunes) and took it to the next level by causing a revolution in the mobile app space. So while the BlackBerry is still the ultimate communication / utilty tool, the iPhone arguably remains the ultimate convergence device.

Kevin being Kevin, however, he can't resist tweaking us either. The Man who, in the first year called the iPhone 2G the iSmudge (before BlackBerry copied its black and silver design) and in the second year called it the Ah Frak Phone (on the eve of the BlackBerry Storm launch no less), decided this year he'd call the iPhone 3GS the douchebag phone (he owns one -- as do almost all the Smartphone Experts editors).

NokiaExperts' Matt Miller

Week 5 closed things out with NokiaExperts.com's Matt Miller, who like Dieter is a multi-handset mobile gadgeteer with a lot of experience and a global point of view. His take:

As a guy who has used every smartphone operating system I am also quite frustrated with the iPhone OS because I know Apple can do better as they have shown glimpses of in the past. One of the main things people mention with the iPhone OS compared to other smartphone operating systems is the lack of multi-tasking with 3rd party applications. [...] Personally, the major thing I want to see in the next version of the iPhone OS is support for some kind of Today or status screen where I can put widgets or parts of applications on a single screen so my key information is glanceable without having to dive into applications. [...] Another area I would like to see addressed is notifications. Palm’s webOS and Google Android have the best implementation of notifications while the iPhone’s is pretty poor.

Setting aside that these are some of the most popular reasons people still Jailbreak their iPhones, Matt (and the other editors who took similar issue with iPhone functionality) will likely find many TiPb readers agreeing with him, yours truly included. Only built-in Apple apps can multitask, only your latest push message is shown on the Lock Screen (if you haven't already dismissed it), and that same one message/dismissal is the crux of the notification problem.

This brings everything sharply into focus. Apple prides itself on making software "5-years ahead of the competition" (see iPhone virtual keyboard). They would rather not provide a solution than provide one that they don't think answers the problem simply and elegantly (see cut, copy, and paste appearing only in iPhone 3.). They would rather provide a highly focused subset of functionality for the mainstream than to check off every power-user want (see everything all of us, er... want). Every version of the iPhone adds features that were considered "missing" to the previous version, either as technology and development resources allow, or Apple deems us sufficiently learned on what came before, and sufficiently motivated to buy what's next.

So, if RAM and CPU are at the level where multitasking will almost never crash the Phone app and Apple decides they have the UI for it they want, if Dashboard goes mobile but can remain uncluttered and Apple-esque in execution and DashCode joins the iPhone SDK, if... well, given the rapid rise of push notifications, there's no if -- we need better alert handling -- we just might get some or all of these things in iPhone 4.0.

Conclusion... Coming Soon

Week 6 is my turn. The iPhone 3GS comes home to TiPb and given everything every other editor has written about it, and everything I've written about the Nokia, BlackBerry, Android, Windows Phone, and Palm webOS, I have to re-examine and re-review the iPhone 3GS.

While that may not be conclusive, it will be TiPb's conclusion for this year.

More specifically, Palm's biggest cheerleader at financial backer, Elevation Partner, Roger McNamee famously gaffed that:

“You know the beautiful thing: June 29, 2009, is the two-year anniversary of the first shipment of the iPhone,” McNamee said today in an interview in San Francisco. “Not one of those people will still be using an iPhone a month later.”

Well, today is July 29, 2009 -- two years later and a month later. Given that Apple sold 5.2 million iPhones last quarter, and AT&T activated 2.5 million of those babies, we're leaning towards a number somewhat higher than "not one."

Hey, maybe that's what he meant? Quite clearly, "millions" means "not one"... right?

(Note: Palm did retract McNamee's hyperbole with a speed that would make Microsoft's Steve Ballmer Open-Mic Reaction Team (SBOMRT) envious.)

The UK's Telegraph ran an article recently with a headline stating "Overheating iPhone 3GS: Apple blames the weather"... that could be a tad misleading. The Telegraph cites an Apple knowledge base article, last updated June 25, 2009, that warns about leaving the iPhone 3GS in hot places or using it under hot conditions, and shows a screenshot of the iPhone's temperate warning screen,

The problem is, as longtime TiPb readers know, it's the same knowledge base article that's been up since the introduction of the iPhone 3G in 2008, the update merely adding in the newly launched iPhone 3GS.

So, while the iPhone 3GS may indeed have overheating problems -- though we're not experiencing any yet -- saying Apple blames the issue on heating is, as mentioned, a tad misleading.

In any event, we're more interested in whether or not our readers are experiencing iPhone 3GS overheating issues, and if so, what are you doing on the device when you experience them, and are you running a jailbroken device?

[via Engadget]

Time Magazine has an interesting article up on Apple's ongoing success with the iPhone in not only a poor economy, but in face of competition like Nokia, Palm, Sony/Ericsson, etc. doing badly, even when they offer much cheaper alternatives.

BlackBerry is enjoying similar success with their higher end products, leading Time to speculate that it's based on brand, a multi-factor and mysterious currency that companies spend fortunes earning so they can make even greater fortunes exploiting:

A lot of people think that consumers who buy brand are suckers, the kind people WC Field used to mock in old movies. Samsung builds a smartphone that looks and works a lot like the iPhone. It is called the Instinct and Apple owners think it is junk.

Where the article falls off the rails, however, is in it's conclusion:

All Apple cares about is that their customers have enough money to buy an iPhone, iPod, or Mac. Suckers have money, too.

It would be a mistake -- and likely one other companies are still making -- to assume "suckers" buy on brand absent other factors, rather than brand embodying the factors customers want to buy. (Even when Apple states just this much during every quarterly conference call.)

Could it be consumers are smarter than many companies -- and perhaps journalists -- give them credit for, and in tougher times they tend towards better products? A junk phone that provides daily frustration and requires monthly or yearly replacement is in no way a better value than a highly refined user experience with tremendous build quality that's offered year-after-year free software updates and a previously unimaginable stream of ever-new applications, creating not only great initial value, but great sustainable value as well.

A better closing would likely have been:

"In tough times, smart customers make smarter choices on where and when to spend their money. Apple realizes this and makes sure their products are ready and waiting... in elegant, inviting little boxes."

Sibling site WMExperts, which -- while Dieter doffs his WinMo cap and rounds his robin reviewing the iPhone -- brings us Phil Nickinson's exception to iPhone OS 2.2's Podcast Download feature.

Okay, it's not cut and paste, lack of MMS, no unified inbox, no Flash, etc. etc. In all fairness, it's an interesting look at some of the things we here at TiPb complain about as well, pointedly the 10MB cap for podcast downloads over the 3G network (you have to switch to WiFi for anything larger, same as the App Store has enforced since iPhone OS 2.0):

It’s this kind of manipulation from Apple that keeps a good many of us from wanting to deal with the company (and frustrates many who do). It’s not that the hardware’s not sexy. It’s not that the software is lacking. It’s that lines are being blurred, or destroyed. Apple makes the hardware, and AT&T provides the service. There’s too much collusion going on. If AT&T wants to set a 5-gigabyte cap on my data, fine. But don’t tell me how to use those gigs. And don’t use Apple as a proxy to do so.

The only problem with the argument? The inclusion of Apple.

Look no further than the very next day on WMExperts, when Dieter posted a rant of his own, asking people to help save GPS on Windows Mobile, which we'll paraphrase thusly:

It’s this kind of manipulation from [Microsoft and the OEMs] that keeps a good many of us from wanting to deal with the company (and frustrates many who do). It’s not that the hardware’s not sexy. It’s not that the software is lacking. It’s that lines are being blurred, or destroyed. [Microsoft and the OEMs] make the [software and hardware], and [Verizon] provides the service. There’s too much collusion going on. If [Verizon] wants to [lock down the GPS that's not fine]. [And] don’t tell me [I have to pay to subscribe to Telenav in order to do it]. And don’t use [Microsoft and the OEMs] as a proxy to do so.

See what we're getting at? Targeting Apple and the iPhone -- which hits the rabbit-eared AT&T 3G towers like Elmer Fudd with a rail gun -- for redirecting high-bandwidth traffic to WiFi, when Verizon is locking out GPS entirely is platform division at the expense of a united front against a common enemy. It's the WinPot calling the iKettle black in a cupboard full of charred cooking ware, and it misses the main culprit: the carrier fire.

Now, while Apple has done more in it's brief 1 1/2 years in the mobile space to break the carrier locks than Microsoft or any other megacorps have done in a decade it's still not enough. Just imagine what could happen if Microsoft put their own, still ginormous weight behind reform. Imagine if Google, rather than taking the carrier-centric, business-as-usual Android licensing route put their "don't be evil" mantra where their handset was? Imagine if RIM, rather than letting carriers rip WiFi from the Blackberry Storm, stood up told the carriers just where exactly they could push their odiferous demands? Imagine if Apple told AT&T to invest a little in infrastructure cause unlimited means unlimited and podcast downloads they are a coming!

Those are the rants I want to see more of, and in more places.

Go get 'em, tigers!

PS: Particularly perplexing with the current 10MB cap on podcasts in iPhone OS 2.2 is that they only apply to direct downloads. Hitting the title, on the other hand, will begin to stream the podcast over 3G (or WiFi) without any such limitations or restrictions. What's up with that? Anyone know if streaming traffic is any different for the 3G network than download traffic?

Surprise, surprise, the Free Software Foundation doesn't want you to use an iPhone 3G. Less surprisingly, they don't want to provide anything more than hyper-sensational, factually challenged reasons why you shouldn't buy it:

Phone completely blocks free software. iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology. iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to track you without your knowledge. iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis and Theora. iPhone is not the only option.

Sigh. Why is it those who demand freedom the most are usually the same ones who respect freedom of choice the least?

They go on to call Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs, a snake-oil salesman who uses good design to pied-piper the dull mundane consumers into buying his shiny little toy, thus abandoning themselves drone-like to his evil, conspiratorial prison. Patronizing? Hypocritical? Black and white just one option too many for the FSF?

DaringFireball gives it a sentence. Allow me to give it a retort! (After the break)

Equally simple analogy:

I have the ability to cook, yet sometimes I choose to buy myself dinner. Sadly, restaurants completely block free eating. Customers must PAY for the food, and the chef is sole authority as to what can or can't be offered on the menu. Restaurants endorse and support federal, state/provincial, and local health and safety codes. Restaurants are public and allow you to be seen and observed eating. Restaurants won't use free, non-proprietary recipes and insist on keeping their secret sauces and 11 herbs and spices to themselves. Restaurants are not the only option. "Stallman's All You Can Eat Organic Buffet" will be opening, gratis, any day now... (Or, again, you can learn to cook yourself!)

One of the gentlemen I work with, Anthony, has rocked his laptop out with Linux in a way that's every bit as drool-worthy as OS X, but I don't have the midichlorians for that depth of geekery, b'okay? He spent a long (loooong) time hacking away at it to get it like that. I opened my shiny Apple box and pressed the power button. I made a choice. We both did. The same choice truly free (as in speech or beer) people are empowered to make. The same as growing my own food or eating at a restaurant.

And as for the App Store? The iPhone doesn't block free software. You can make any software you want. Apple can likewise refuse to distribute any software they want. Free goes both ways, right? Or should Apple be forced to push your pr0n virus? Developers don't pay a tax. They buy a distribution service based on a percentage of revenue such that when revenue is nill, the distribution fee is likewise nill. (30% of 0 is 0, in case FSF calculators can't yet handle arithmetic). And the sole authority over what can and can't be on my iPhone? That'd be me. (I can even banish the built-in Apps to screen 9...)

Do I really have to metaphor-strain the sous-chef not getting all the customer's money because a percentage goes to to pay rent, utilities, infrastructure, suppliers, etc. And that customers can easily leave part or all of their food on the plate if its not to their liking?

Lest we forget, Apple is a for-profit company and the iPhone is a consumer device. People in general not only want but need to get paid for their work. Not everyone can rely on patronage or millions in Google search revenue (which is really just another, sometimes less up-front, method of accepting payment for work).

As to Steve Jobs being the mustache-twirling villain, better to think of him more as self-absorbed artist. He wants to paint his picture of the perfect gadget, and he absolutely cringes at the idea of someone else coming along and doodling on it afterwards. See, it's not really a computer or a phone to him, its his creation (and the creation of his apprentices). Sure, he'll compromise to get the work done (DRM) and to get it out (App Store), but its not just a little beige box crunching math to him. It's an object d'art.

Still, Free and Open Source Software is important to the industry. For every singular concept piece, there must be thousands if not millions of utilitarian derivatives. Hey, even Apple contributes toward WebKit, Darwin, CUPS, SproutCore, CalDAV, CardDAV, and a host of other FOSS projects. (Yup, patronage). That importance is probably why I'm so disappointed in the FSF. It's a serious topic for serious people, not an agenda or petty stick to be batted about in the name of media attention (which I'm sadly giving).

But bottom-line, there's only one reason to avoid the iPhone 3G: If you choose something else.