For all those who think their opinion means something to Apple, I submit this...

Apple has gotten a significant amount of critical press surrounding its rejection policies in the App Store. A few high profile rejections have been widely reported and inspired at least one amusing comic.
Apparently, Apple has now started labeling their rejection letters with Non-Disclosure (NDA) warnings

Now THAT is classic Apple.  Take all the complaints and rather than respond to them, do just the opposite.  Become even more dictatorial about the whole thing. 

Here's the thing about Apple.  In a nutshell, they're control freaks.  That fact probably makes them bad people but it's exactly why they make great products. 

Apple isn't going to do what you want.  In fact, if you criticize Apple on something (see above) they may very well do just the opposite of what you want just to spite you. 

One of the facts I've come to accept in life is that most of the truly talented people in this world owe that talent more to their faults than their virtues.  Great leaders are almost always egomaniacal, great artists are almost always emotionally unstable and great product designers are almost always control freaks.  That's the way things work. 

The well-adjusted get to be well-adjusted (a reward in itself) but they rarely get to be great. 

So my advice is to accept it and move on.  Apple's contributions still far out weight the company's character flaws and that's really all that matters in the end.  The rest is just whining at the inevitable. 

I've been reading the dustup caused by Apple rejecting Podcaster (an iPhone app) because it duplicated the functionality of iTunes (which is apparently a no-no).  After the developer posted on his blog that Apple had rejected the app a bunch of other bloggers jumped in and claimed they'd "never develop for the iPhone" because of the policy. 

Though I fall more into the Michael Arrington camp of "You'll all keep developing for the iPhone no matter what you say" I do have to admit to an increasingly sour taste in my mouth being left by Apple's policies.

I should preface this by saying I come to this topic from "a negative place" if you will.  I was really excited about the iPhone and iPod Touch and bit hook, line and sinker into the idea of developing applications for it.  I even went out and bought a Macbook Pro to do it on.

But almost instantly I started to fall out of love with the idea.  There just seemed to be a lot of hassles involved in it all.  The kicker was when I realized I couldn't share anything I wrote.  Apple limits distribution to either phones in a corporate group or the App Store.  So if I write an application I can't even give it to a friend and say "Hey, try this out and let me know what you think" because Apple won't let me. 

Eventually I decided to go with an iPhone Web App instead (which did 90% of what I wanted anyway)

Back to the topic at hand I don't have a huge problem with what Apple is doing.  I certainly don't approve but it's not that much worse than what Microsoft, for example, has been doing for years. 

I mean really, what is the difference between Apple turning down your app so it can't be on the platform and Microsoft spending a million dollars to create an identical app and giving it away for free?  The end result is the same, you don't make any money for your hard work. 

If anything, Apple is probably doing developers more of a favor (in a "better of two evils sort of way").  At least when they turn you down you don't spend thousands of dollars trying to compete in a battle you have no chance of actually winning. 

So really this is the same old song and dance.  The only difference is that Apple doesn't care what people think so they don't sugar coat their iron fisted tactics like other companies do. 

Read This.  I'll Wait. 

Good Yes?  I really did love this blog post.  So much so that I'm not even going to quote it as one last attempt to get you to read the whole thing. 

If you still didn't read it (what is wrong with you?) I'll summarize really quickly.  Basically the author makes the point that concept designs (a.k.a. those product designs that are shown off as "products of the future" during tech presentations) are pointless.  They never come to anything and are almost always leap frogged by people designing actual products (Tivo, iPod, etc...)

I could not agree with this sentiment more.  Research and Development that isn't attached to an actual product doesn't work because you have no idea if the average consumer will have any interest in what you're developing.  TV Executives, for example, spend millions of dollars a year to gauge how the public will react to certain shows and still fail more than they succeed when it comes to actually making successful shows. 

Yet we're supposed to be believe a researcher inside a company like Microsoft is going to be keyed into the wants and needs of the average person?  Doubtful.

Consider this, Microsoft spends more on R&D than any other company on Earth.  So why is the crown jewel of their next OS something they had to steal from an Apple product?  More importantly, what of value has Microsoft R&D ever managed to produce? 

I can't think of anything.

That's $6 BILLION dollars per year being flushed down the toilet (that's average, it was actually $7 billion in 2007).  Think much you could do if you spread that money around to various startups.  Sure many of them would fail but a few wouldn't and at least then you would have produced SOMETHING with your $7 BILLION dollars that year. 

Which brings me to my point: Corporate R&D should focus on actual products, albeit high priced ones. 

There are always going to be very rich people in the world which means there's always going to be a market for products that push the boundaries of what we can do.  Given that there's no reason for any person at Microsoft to be working on something that can't be turned into a product of some kind. 

It doesn't have to be profitable it just has to be something usable.  Something that someone will want to buy.  That way you can determine if the thing you are working on is something no one wants to buy and change gears if there's no interest. 

By doing this companies like Microsoft could actually manage to produce revolutionary consumer devices.  It's been my observation that the world follows a pretty simple cycle in this area...

• Products are made that cost too much for anyone but the richest of people
• The richest of people buy those products which increases production
• Prices fall
• Those ultra expensive innovations reach the public at large

This isn't rocket science.  It's been happening since the beginning of time.  Long before "smart" people conceived of spending monstrous amounts of money on ventures that never produce a working product. 

The New York Times article on Steve Jobs' health is making quite a stir today.  Fred Wilson, who has already made his feelings known on this issue, had this to say...

Steve Jobs is an arrogant fuck who thinks he's above the law. He's also the most amazing technology CEO/entrepreneur working right now. He's way better than Bill Gates (who isn't working anymore) and the Google duo in my book.

Apple and Steve are at the top of their game, pushing the envelope in so many ways. But Steve is wrong to try to hide his personal health from the media, the market, his customers, and his employees.

Steve's health is not a private matter as much as he'd like it to be. Apple's stock is off between 15-20% in the  past 45 days in the midst of one of the most powerful product cycles (iPhone) we've witnessed in the tech business.

On Steve Jobs' Health I'll say one thing and one thing only. 

Steve Jobs has no responsibility to reveal anything about his health BUT Apple has acted irresponsibly here.

This isn't hard folks, Jobs' answers to the board and he has a responsibility to disclose issues to them.  You are not on the Apple board, so he has no responsibility to you.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  Telling the world of a possible problem would only give the competition an advantage making it the absolute last thing he should do. 

With that said, where Jobs' and the board have failed is in allowing Apple to become the "Cult of Steve".  That is really the issue here.

The stock is falling not because Jobs'  has a health crisis but because he's set up no backup plan should he have to step down.

THAT is the point.  But that isn't as much a failing of Jobs' as it is a failure of the rest of Apple's governance.  A corporate system works on the principle that employees are mercenaries in regards to their own circumstance but that they collectively act in the interest of the company.  So while each employee will try to get as much as they can when it is time to negotiate their personal circumstances they will act in the interest of the company when negotiating with every other employee.

Apple's board has been remiss in letting Jobs' run the place like his own personal fiefdom which has now resulted in the outside world thinking Apple has no future without him.  But in that scenario Jobs' was acting exactly like he should as an employee.  It is Apple's board that has really failed stock holders.

The Quick Aside About Quoting Fred Wilson...I quote Fred Wilson because I have a history of commenting on him and this issue and I think his comments here illuminate something about the "Transparency Movement" that's important. 

It is one thing to say "I believe in being transparent" or "I would like to share all my health information publicly" (as Mr. Wilson has said he would like to do).  But it is quite another to say "I demand that same behavior from everyone else"  which is exactly what Mr. Wilson is saying...

The technology revolution that Steve has had so much to do with has changed a lot of things and one of them is transparency. You can't hide stuff anymore. So honesty is the best policy.

So when I speak out about transparency keep in mind that part of the reason I'm so against it is because I know the people who endorse the idea are also those who would demand it of the rest of the world.

Yesterday was pretty heavy so I thought this might be a good time for something a little more light hearted.  I really enjoyed this video and its only 10 minutes long so its worth a look. 

Continuing on what seems to be "The Week of the iPhone" here on TomsTechBlog here's a story about Steve Jobs saying Apple will design its own mobile processors in the next generation of iPhone...

South Korea-based Samsung has long been central to Apple's handheld efforts (), supplying the primary SoCs -- or system-on-chips -- for everything from the iPod nano to the iPhone. Meanwhile, Intel has been in the running to assert its Atom processors at heart of a larger iPhone-like Multi-Touch internet tablet that's also under development at the Cupertino-based electronics maker, and was at one time believed to have sealed the deal.

Unfortunately for the two industry heavyweights, Apple appears to have other plans to further innovation around its Multi-Touch platform that will reduce its reliance on chip designs conceived largely by third parties. In an interview following his keynote address at the Worldwide Developers Conference on Monday, Jobs told the New York Times' John Markoff that his firm's recent $278 million acquisition of a small fabless semiconductor company called P.A. Semi was an investment in the future of its handheld products.

The reason I post on this, to be honest, is to make myself look good.  Because just a couple days ago I posted this...

Why this should give people pause: Jobs' crowing over how the 3G and GPS chips were fit into the iPhone without increasing the size was just the NeXT monitor all over again.  I have no doubt there was some amazing and very time consuming engineering behind that accomplishment.  The question is whether that was the best use of Apple's resources and if anyone would care that the phone was 1/4 of an inch thicker than the original.  Because I suspect that other things got the shaft because of that feat of engineering.

Designing your own processor is stupid because no one cares and it's a huge resource drain.

Lets say they do have a fantastic design team and they do manage to eek out a whole second or so of faster processing time.  Ask yourself, is it going to matter to the consumer?  Is it going to matter more than Video Chat, MMS Messaging, or a host of other features they could easily produce with an Intel chip?

Of course it isn't.  Consumers don't care about processors unless the performance increase is huge.  Want Proof?  One example springs to mind and that example is...Apple. 

Remember the days when Apple was using the PowerPC chip?  They'd trot out a Mac, put it next to a PC and amaze onlookers as the PowerPC Mac easily bested the equivalent Intel PC.  Then they sold millions and millions of Macs and eventually defeated the PC in the marke...oh wait, no they didn't. 

What they did was eventually move to Intel chips because no one cared that the PowerPC was faster and their refusal to switch was backing them into a corner on the hardware front. 

Now Apple has another revolutionary product and It's looking more and more like Old Apple is back with its "Not Invented Here" syndrome fully intact.  I can see the press conference now: Apple will trot out its new iPhones, put them next to the equivalent phone on Intel architecture and amaze onlookers as the iPhone easily bests the other phone.  Then they'll sell millions and millions of iPhones and eventually defeat...oh wait...

Yeah...that's my point.

Now that the "fan-boy-itis" has begun to pass I've been thinking of exactly why yesterday's announcement was such a let down.   I started to think about Steve Jobs and Apple in general and what I realized was that yesterday showed the signs of two disastrous traits from the past.

These two traits, or "demons" as I refer to them below, are probably all that stands in the way of Apple dominating the mobile field at this point.

Demon #1: Over engineering to the point of detriment

There's a famous story of Steve Jobs' time at NeXT.  Apparently he invited a reporter to NeXT headquarters for an interview.  At this point NeXT had not introduced a PC yet and everyone was beyond anxious.  When the reporter arrived they saw a PC looking object with a cloth covering it and assumed they'd be treated to a first look at the long awaited NeXT PC.

When Jobs eventually arrived and lifted the cloth what was under it was not a PC but just a monitor.  A beautiful monitor, a near perfect monitor, but nothing more.  According to the reporter Jobs went on and on about the monitor and how they had engineered it to be the perfect monitor.  But in the end all that bravado hid the sad truth that NeXT had put so many resources into over engineering the thing to perfection that they were no where near having a working PC.

They never did manage to produce a PC in the time frame they needed to.  Had Apple not bought them for their OS NeXT would have been a complete failure because of that. 

Why this should give people pause: Jobs' crowing over how the 3G and GPS chips were fit into the iPhone without increasing the size was just the NeXT monitor all over again.  I have no doubt there was some amazing and very time consuming engineering behind that accomplishment.  The question is whether that was the best use of Apple's resources and if anyone would care that the phone was 1/4 of an inch thicker than the original.  Because I suspect that other things got the shaft because of that feat of engineering. 

Demon #2: Leap and then take a break

Of course the classic Apple story is of the original MacOS.  Years ahead of anyone when it came out Apple never managed to create a successor to it.  They engineered three separate OS systems as possible replacements but never managed to get one out the door (Ironically that is what eventually brought Jobs' back into the fold when Apple bought NeXT for the OS). 

This all comes back to a fatal flaw that Apple employees always seem to have which is arrogance.  They are the best at what they do in many ways but they tend to think they're even better than they are which leads them to not compete as fiercely as they could.

Why this should give people pause: A year later Apple has given us access to some things we didn't have initially (the SDK) but doesn't appear to have added much of anything.  Things like Exchange support were the result of a Microsoft licensing agreement so you can't really give them credit for that.  In truth the iPhone has been at a stand still while Nokia, Google and even Microsoft have all rushed to incorporate its advances into their own platforms. 

With that said...

The above is one side of the story.  The other side of the story is that the Steve Jobs and the Apple of today are probably worlds different from the ones featured in the above stories.  For Jobs part he has so far successfully shown he can lead Apple without the destructive quirks that did him in the first time around.  On Apple's part the MacOS debacle was in large part due to then CEO John Sculley not feeling confident enough to lead engineering staff (a problem Steve Jobs certainly doesn't have)

But as I read the parade of ridiculous hands-on tests where each author tries desperately to find something to say about an iPhone that is essentially identical to its predecessor I can't help but think of the above two items and wonder if Apple's bad angels are finally catching up to it. 

Finally, at 11:35 (over an hour and a half later) the iPhone 3G is announced.  So far it doesn't look all that special.  An all plastic casing, slightly thinner, and 3G.  I'm going to do a little live blogging here to burn off some of that excitement energy while watching...

"the iPhone 3G is 36% faster than the nokia N95 and Treo 750" - Steve Jobs

Download times compared: Edge: 59 seconds, 3G: 21 seconds, WiFi: 17 seconds

Built-In GPS (as expected).  It uses all three (WiFi, Cell Towers and built in GPS) to calculate location.  If you leave the program open as you drive it shows a dotted line as you move along the map.

You know how you can tell its an Apple announcement?  When the Starbucks pereson comes over and instead of thinking you're crazy for continually pushing the F5 button she asks "Did he announce it yet?"

$199 for the 8Gb, $299 for the 16Gb...

Uh oh...July 11th Worldwide Rollout Date? 

Well, and that's about it.  I'm really disappointed now.  Not just that I couldn't buy one today but that there was no "surprise" feature.  No Video Chat.  No new Macbooks.  No "One More Thing...".  Nothing. 

Honestly, I thought I'd be so excited that I'd go buy something from the Apple store even if there was no iPhone today but this whole experience was kind of a downer.  2 hours with no surprise is pretty lackluster for an Apple announcement. 

This is interesting.  Apparently Apple has decided to handle all Push communication themselves.  So applications can push data to an iPhone but they have to send it through Apple to do so.  The advantage of this is that only one program is running in the background (and I assume the unspoken advantage is that Apple can shut down an abusive server which should make it pretty  hard to create a "spam app" for the iPhone)

If there are no further updates beyond this point, you can just assume my head has exploded.  I realize this is a developer conference but they are on the 9th application demo at this point and its really getting tedious.

Some are kind of neat.  I'm not a big Baseball fan but MLB.com has an app that not only allows you to check scores but also watch clips which are available only minutes after the play happened (for those who don't know Major League Baseball has one of the most advanced back ends out there with each stadium wired with multiple cameras that all feed into servers that can disseminate them to web viewers)

But geez its been an hour already...