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. 

As a general rule I try to avoid historical comparisons until they become blindingly obvious.  The reason is I find it too easy to draw inappropriate conclusions from just a few similarities. 

That's my mind set when reading this quote from Silicon Alley Insider regarding Google's Cell Phone platform Android...

But someone who's actually seen the gadget -- similar, if not identical to the one in the photo -- tells us that both the hardware (from handset-maker HTC) and Google's Android software suffer from a similar problem: They're technically powerful but not as elegant as Apple's (AAPL) iPhone and OS X.

Anyone who remembers back to the mid-to-late 90s will remember that exact same phrase being attributed to Microsoft Windows.  Time after time Windows was derided as an inelegant solution and time after time it managed to best the Macintosh in sales. 

So the question is: Will Android Manage To Do The Same Thing To The iPhone?

There are a lot of factors that point to that being the case.  Google has managed to co-opt several of Microsoft's best tricks including licensing their OS, embracing Developers and inserting Apple's features into a less elegant package.  It would seem to be PC vs Mac all over again.

But at this point, I still don't think so.

Google's sort of like a little league baseball player.  They've got the right moves but they still need to be able to execute on them effectively.  Google has, as of right now, not managed to effectively execute on any of it's goals beyond its initial victory in Search.  An especially sad record when you consider they give everything away for free.  So while they can mimic Microsoft they haven't shown they can turn that into the same success record.

Beyond that they're lacking a few key advantages that Microsoft had in the PC wars.  First, Microsoft started with the support of all the major players while Google lacks support from all but the small, no name providers.  The "license the OS" strategy only works if you can achieve critical mass.  In addition, Android doesn't have price to fall back on.  Though the iPhone is still far more expensive than Android phones are expected to be AT&T has stepped in with a contract to remedy that situation. 

That means consumers will see roughly the same price when they go to buy. 

So while Google might seem to be employing a historically successful strategy that isn't necessarily the case.  It just looks that way because of a few well placed similarities.  Android could still defy the odds and become a hit but only if Google quickly manages to become a lot more like Microsoft of old.

I saw this article from The Inquisitr yesterday but had already zeroed in on my interest for the evening so I let it pass.  Then tonight I saw this follow up piece on Techmeme and decided the topic was something I wanted to address.

The basic gist of the two posts is that the iPhone, because there are a couple cool games on it, is the next great gaming platform.  To quote Duncan Riley of the Inquistr...

The new iPhone IS a gaming platform.

Om Malik over on GigaOM asked the same question this morning, and noted figures from Cellufun that iPhone users are playing games at a rate four times that of other mobile phone users. And why wouldn’t they? the phone is built for gaming. Full color, decent sized screen, easy to navigate a game by touch or moving the phone, as opposed to the cumbersome keying required by other phones.

The second piece actually goes even further suggesting that the iPhone's success will inspire a new generation of Mac games...

One of the last holdouts of the PC v. Mac wars is gaming. The iPhone is going to bring the game companies and a world of amateur develoeprs into the OS X fold, it isn’t much of a stretch to believe they’ll notice the increasing market share of the Mac on desktops and put a little more effort in there. Not to mention all the other developers hard at work learning objective-c right now. All those folks buying iPhones and then buying a new mac, well, they’re going to need more programs, too. I’m just saying.

Now first let me say that there are a few neat games for the iPhone and the App Store makes it very easy to purchase them.  I don't deny either of those facts.  But before we plan a coronation there are a few factors to consider here...

1.  Thumbs Vs. Fingers: The iPhone has no buttons.  Despite the above attempts to make touch out as some kind of advantage the truth is that every gaming platform since the original Nintendo console has required the user to use their thumbs to navigate.  The iPhone requires a user not only to learn an entirely new way of playing but to learn a way of playing that is completely counter intuitive (because to use touch to control the screen you then block your view of the screen).  Combine that with the sometimes dubious recognition of screen taps and the difficulty of distinguishing between some gestures and you have a pretty awkward control interface.

2.  Lack of specialized APIs: Companies like Microsoft and Sony have spent millions of dollars developing APIs that specifically make game programming easier.  Anyone who ever tried to program a Windows game before DirectX came along knows just how difficult game programming can be without such an API.  3D sound alone was next to impossible before DirectSound.  Apple, as far as I can tell, has put no effort into this (other than to support OpenGL which is certainly a nice start)

3.  iStandard Graphics: The few serious iPhone games we've seen have been great but lets not get carried away here.  The graphics are no better than those on a PSP, DS, or even Windows Mobile.  So it isn't as if the iPhone excels in the area.  It certainly doesn't excel to the point where it will draw developers in.

4.  Big Brother/Little Brother: Remember that most mobile platforms have Console or PC equivalents with huge install bases which make developer skills go further.  PSP programmers can use the same skills they user for the Playstation, Windows Mobile developers are equipped to program for Windows PCs and XBoxes, even Nintendo DS developers have the Wii (though my understanding is that these two platforms are the most divergent of those listed).  Bottom line,  the Mac install base is still pretty tiny and while learning iPhone game development will allow you to write Mac games that isn't such a sought after skill

5.  Frameworks: continuing on the development note most games are written using existing game engines.  There are some pretty advanced game engines already pre-packaged and ready for game developers to write with on just about every other platform.  The Mac on the other hand seems to have none (though in fairness that's based on only a few minutes of searching).

5.  A License to Play: Games don't necessarily go to the best platform.  Game console vendors are in the business of having the best games.  That means going out of their way to make sure they have the hot games and the most popular licensed products.  In the end, getting games on the platform becomes a business in its own right.  But not only has Apple shown no interest in this business the very idea of it is almost contrary to their "you should want to develop for us" attitude. 

6.  Power Problems Galore: Your average PSP can manage about 6  hours of constant game play before dying.  To be blunt my iPhone can barely manage 6 hours of sitting in my pocket since the 2.0 upgrade.  I'm being a little over dramatic here but not by much.  The iPhone just can't compete on battery life. 

The above items are actually just the tip of the ice berg  (the list was 3 times as long but I didn't want this post to be unmanageable).  In the end there are so many things stacked against the iPhone as a gaming platform that I'm surprised it has any games on it at all.

That isn't to say there won't be a few more cool games in the iPhone's future but as a gaming platform its a bust.  Hard for developers to develop for, incapable of game play in a standardized fashion and far more expensive than any other gaming platform on the market. 

I've had a fairly iPhone deficient day.  A brief encounter with the Apple store not withstanding I really haven't focused on today's release.  The one article that did catch my eye was this one by Mashable entitled "How the iPhone App Store Will Kill iPhone Web Apps"

In it they come to this conclusion...

The end is finally here for the Web app. And I, for one, am happy to see it go.

I'm enjoying all the native apps as much as the next guy but I still see a very valid need for Web Apps.  In fact, I'd say applications that don't need the added functionality of a native environment are better off staying with the Web App.  Native applications should be the domain of applications that (a) need access to the iPhone's hardware (camera, graphic acceleration, etc...) or (b) need to use background services (such as IM clients and such)

Below I give several reasons why the iPhone Web App shouldn't and probably won't be going anywhere.

Early Adopters vs The Rest Of Us

I think its important to make a distinction between the mentality of the early adopter and that of the average consumer.  Early adopters go out of their way to look for what they can do with a device which includes spending tons of time going through the Apple App Store to see all the neat apps they can find.

The Average Consumer on the other hand is more likely to wait until they need something to go looking for it.  That makes "no install" a huge advantage in this arena.  Things like tip calculators or restaurant finders are probably better left on the Web where they can be accessed at a moments notice.

Web Apps Got Better too

One of the points the Mashable article makes is to say...

Apple was ostensibly under the impression that users wouldn’t mind using Safari to access applications and the lack of native software wouldn’t really matter. But after few people jumped on the bandwagon, it became abundantly clear that developers weren’t all that willing to jump on-board and more often than not, online applications were plagued with lag issues, few updates, and only simple games were available.

There's truth to that but I'd point out that many of the problems with iPhone Web Apps were related to painfully slow data speeds delivered by an Edge network.  I find most web apps are perfectly fine over WiFi. 

So 3G speeds are going to be a major plus for Web Apps in the future.

The Establishment comes knocking

Should the iPhone really take off in the corporate world the idea of "lowest possible development cost" is going to start coming into play.  That means trying to have as small a code base as possible which in turn makes developing web apps for your existing Intranet a lot easier than creating native apps.

Any serious business is probably going to be too enamored by the cost savings of web apps to even look at the native side of things. 

I Love Cocoa, You Love Cocoa, but Not Everybody Loves Cocoa

Somewhat related to the above point you have to remember there's a huge barrier of entry to iPhone development.  It literally requires you start over from scratch and learn Apple's custom development environment.  No Java, No C#, No Visual Basic, No Windows Development, No Linux Development, and no Flash development.  All your existing tools are useless to you.

If you want to develop for the iPhone and you aren't already an Apple developer you need to go out and buy yourself a Mac, get accustomed to that, load up XCode (the Mac Development tool), get accustomed to that, then start learning an entirely new programming language (Objective C) and get accustomed to that.  A language, I might add, that is only used by Apple.  So it isn't like you can decide to switch from Java to Objective C and do all your work in that from now on. 

For independent developers this is a tall fence to climb especially when they can use all their current tools to develop web apps for the iPhone. 

Understanding Branding

Back to the Mashable article for a second, they make this point...

On top of that, we can’t discount the fact that online apps are missing a key component: revenue models. Unlike the Web, Apple’s App store provides developers with the opportunity to sell applications at any price and effectively help them turn a profit on something that was making nothing online. On top of that, Apple will allow free apps to be ad-supported, meaning every developer has an opportunity to turn a profit regardless of the software’s price.

And although some may say that ads could help developers turn a profit online, the amount of people heading to online apps isn’t nearly high enough to do it.

True...but not really.

A large part of the Web App world is acting as an extension for a web page.  I had never in my life visited or even heard of Weatherbug.com until they were one of the first to have an iPhone web app.  Now I use their desktop site about once a day (where there are plenty of ads). 

Web Apps are easy to develop for those already maintaining a commercial web site so there isn't much of a barrier to entry and they act as free, virtually constant advertising for the larger brand. 

Bottom line: The Mashable logic makes the mistake of assuming iPhone apps exist in a vaccuum which they don't.

The Missing Fun

This last point is a very personal one but still valid.  Developing a deployable native app is, by Apple's design, hard.  They allow you to use the development environment to put it on your iPhone but to give it to anyone else you have to either get accepted into the Apple program and wait 6 months or register each iPhone using the software as one of your corporate computers.

That essentially locks out the hobbyist developer who sits at his PC for 8 hours on a Saturday, kicks out a neat little app and then sends it to all his friends.  That scenario is what makes being a hobbyist developer fun and that scenario isn't possible with native apps.  Web apps on the other hand are free game. 

I think people would be surprised at how many times the next cool thing gets developed by a hobbyist over a weekend.

Conclusion

Hopefully the above has made the point that there's still a very rich world available to iPhone Web Apps.  Don't get me wrong, native is great and I personally am using the SDK to develop applications that make use of the camera (which I couldn't do in a web app).  But that doesn't mean the end is near for the web app.

I think both types probably have a pretty bright future.

I've just returned from the lovely Victoria Gardens Shopping Center where I did not...buy an iPhone 3G.  I did get close though (as the pictures from outside the store attest to).

I was really torn right up until I got to the front door.

On one hand, Mark Evans' series of negative posts on Rogers of Canada had been pushing me into it.  At least, in the same way parents push their kids into eating their green beans because there are starving children somewhere. 

"Just accept your AT&T contract because there are iPhone-less children in Canada who would kill for such a deal" was what I kept hearing in my head.

But despite that the logic was really stacked against the purchase.  I'd have to pay $500 AND extend my AT&T contract another two years.  Plus I'd have to pay $30 more a month for a plan with 200 less SMS messages (my current one has 200, the new one would have none).  The software on it would be identical to what I could get with my first generation iPhone so that wasn't worth it and since most of my browsing is done on WiFi anyway there wasn't much to be gained there.  The only other thing new was the GPS and I already have a GPS (that does turn by turn directions and downloads traffic data no less).

Duncan Riley's unboxing last night also did a lot to deter me.  Seeing the two of them side by side as he pointed out what appeared to be no difference in the physical dimensions made an impression.  As did the cheap plastic back which, imho, makes it look worse than the iPhone 1.0. 

But the clincher was the line. 

Even if I had been ready to buy one today there's no way I was standing in line.  Especially when that line didn't seem to be moving (these photos are from 1:30pm which is a full 5 and a half hours after the store opened)

You can't really tell but the line was basically to the end of Apple store which constituted about 30 or so people waiting to get in plus a store full of people who were waiting inside.  The two attendants were there to let anyone in who wasn't getting an iPhone but they told me that was essentially no one.  Which meant everyone in the packed store was part of the line.

There was just no way...

So hope Apple comes up with an actual worthy upgrade some time in the future but for now I'm sticking with my old faithful first gen version.

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.

As yesterday surely proves, I am an iPhone fan.  A "dyed in the wool bought a Macbook and am learning a new programming environment just to develop for it going to buy the 3G version even though I have absolutely no need for it" fanboy. 

But I also own a Blackberry which is why I had to roll my eyes at Don Reisinger's post entitled "Apple may have killed the Blackberry".  In it he says...

But then, in a moment of pure triumph, Steve walked onto the stage and unveiled the new 3G iPhone.

Sure, it was exactly what we expected (minus the MMS), but it also was a call to arms. Instead of maintaining its status as the consumer's cell phone, the iPhone is now the every-person's cell phone and has RIM firmly centered in its sights.

RIM may be the leader in the enterprise market right now and companies like Microsoft will constantly claim that they can hold their own, but rest assured that this is a two horse race. And although the BlackBerry has led the way, Steve Jobs just dealt a decisive blow that will not only force RIM to capitulate, but could see the end of the BlackBerry line altogether.

Over react much?  A few things to remember...

• Blackberry has had GPS for years and the iPhone still doesn't offer turn-by-turn directions which, again, has been in the Blackberry for years
• Blackberry supports cut and paste which is a big thing when you are trying to do business on the road and interact with two different colleagues about the same issue (or any number of other scenarios for that matter)
• Blackberry has a built in "To Do List/Task Manager" application that syncs with Exchange.  iPhone does not. 
• Battery life is much better on pretty much any Blackberry and that is of the utmost importance for a business user
• Blackberry's come with REMOVABLE BATTERIES.  Most business people I know carry around a spare.
• Blackberry supports MMS (which I would assume is of almost no use to business users but still deserves a mention)
• Blackberry's support Video recording
• Almost all Blackberry's have better cameras (same 2 MP but with 5x Zoom)
• Almost all Blackberry's come with MicroSD slots
• Blackberry's sync technology is more mature.  Assuming the iPhone is using ActiveSync which is licensed from Microsoft I can personally attest to the Blackberry  having better sync capabilities. 
• Blackberry has an excellent search function (which is paticularly good at searching through e-mail but can search the whole device if you need it).  iPhone has none.
• Blackberry's support voice dialing, iPhones do not (though I've never been a fan of the feature)
• Blackberry's allow you to record quick voice notes, the iPhone doesn't (very important to a lot of business users)
• iPhone's bluetooth capabilities are crippled by Apple so that you can only use an ear piece.  Blackberry can use any Bluetooth device and supports stereo sound
• Blackberry's can be used as a tethered 3G Modem for a laptop, the iPhone can not
• Blackberry is easier to use as a phone (iPhone takes several screen clicks to get to Spearker for example while Blackberry has one hardware button)
• From what I can tell, the iPhone can't be locked down by administrators in the same way a Blackberry can
• The iPhone offers nothing (enterprise feature wise) above and beyond what a Blackberry can do.  Organizations with a Blackberry infrastructure already paid for aren't going to switch to something that doesn't improve on anything just to use iPhones (believe it or not most companies would prefer their employees not have great web access on the road)

and the biggest point of them all...

• Most Blackberry users use their phone for e-mail 95% of the time and the iPhone's soft keyboard is vastly inferior to every Blackberry I've ever seen. 

Beyond that I have to say that the Blackberry has a lot of fine tuning that the iPhone still lacks.  One example: unless you purposely choose to turn the feature off the Blackberry alarm will sound even if the phone is turned off.  For a business person using their phone as their alarm clock that sort of thing matters and little things like that are what make the Blackberry better suited for business users. 

In the end, the iPhone is trying to serve two masters (business and casual users) while the Blackberry is only interested in one.  For that reason the Blackberry will probably always be a better business choice (at least until there's an "iPhone Business Edition" from Apple)

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)