The Mac Sucks!

According to Sophos, the antivirus company, iPhone owners in Australia have found their “jailbroken” phones to have been infected by a worm that changes their wallpaper image to a picture of 1980’s pop singer Rick Astley. In addition, the worm makes attempts to infect other jailbroken iPhones within the same network. The worm does this by making an SSH connection to the jailbroken phone using the default password of “alpine”.

While it’s important to note that iPhones that haven’t been jailbroken aren’t vulnerable to the worm, it does point out a weakness of sorts that Mac users would do well to think about. Apple has gone out of its way to make the iPhone easy for non-technical users to pick up, understand, and use. The hacker community has, similarly, made it relatively easy for non-technical, less-security-conscious individuals to hack their phones for use on other networks. What those less-technical people are now learning the hard way is that the iPhone isn’t impervious to attack. By either not learning enough about securing their jailbroken iPhones, or not believing the devices could be attacked, these individuals have become victims of malware. Fortunately, it’s not particularly malicious malware in this case.

The lesson for Mac users is similar. Apple has taken a powerful UNIX operating system and made it easy to use (both in the iPhone and the Mac). Even if you want to argue that the built-in security of Mac OS X is very strong, it only takes a careless software install to leave an opening in the Mac’s defenses that malware can exploit. For example, users who downloaded a pirated copy of iWork ‘09 also unknowingly downloaded a Trojan. If they’ve been listening to Apple’s advertising hype, they probably believe the Mac is immune to all malware, or that Apple somehow has them magically protected. This may explain why experts determined in April 2009 that a “zombie Mac botnet” is active on the Internet, consisting of many infected Macs.

Without question, Windows is the overwhelmingly popular target of malware authors. For every Trojan on Mac OS X or Linux, there are probably thousands for Windows. It would be foolish to operate a Windows PC on the Internet without a firewall, antivirus software, and other such protections. But it’s equally foolish to believe that the Macintosh is somehow magically immune to malware. It’s far, far less common on the Mac, to be sure. However, “less common” doesn’t mean “non-existent”. The Trojan and botnet examples discussed above are proof of that. A smart Mac user will recognize the potential for a malware infection (however slight) and take appropriate steps to protect against it. Just like your homeowner’s insurance, it’s the sort of thing you hope you never need to use, but it could save your proverbial backside if something goes wrong. If you disagree, well, it’s your computer and your data. Best of luck to you.

We’ve discussed before how Apple’s tendency to speak in “absolutes” (e.g., “the nation’s fastest”, “the world’s most advanced”) will come back to bite it eventually. There’s nothing wrong with being proud of what you produce, but Apple seems to arrogantly proclaim that any product it produces is always the “ultimate” at something.

When it comes to its iPhone, Apple often touts that AT&T’s network is “the nation’s fastest 3G network“. PCWorld recently decided to test the 3G networks of AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint in 13 different U.S. cities. What it found was that, depending on your definition, AT&T does not have the “nation’s fastest” 3G network.

The AT&T network’s download speed tested at 812 kbps, which is worse than Verizon (951 kbps) and virtually identical to Sprint (808 kbps). Sprint and Verizon are better for reliability, however, than AT&T. PCWorld’s testers found that they were able to make a connection at a reasonable, uninterrupted speed on AT&T’s network in only 68% of their tests. Sprint’s network delivered a fast connection in 90.5% of tests, and performed “especially well” in terms of speed and reliability in the western U.S. cities tested. Verizon was available in 89.8% of the tests.

In other words, if you look at upload speed, you might argue that AT&T is “the nation’s fastest” 3G network. If, however, you look at download speed (which is probably what most iPhone customers would really care about), AT&T is at best “middle of the road” among the major cellular data providers… hardly “the nation’s fastest”.

Although it’s interesting to see that an independent source has confirmed that Apple’s “nation’s fastest” claim doesn’t quite hold up, one has to wonder if this isn’t just another part of an Apple conspiracy to discredit AT&T so that it can break its iPhone agreement early and start selling the device through other carriers.

According to CNET’s Leslie Katz, the iPhone 3GS has already been “jailbroken” so that it can run unapproved third-party applications. The jailbreak application is known as “purplera1n” is currently only available for Windows machines and requires the latest version of iTunes to be installed. A Mac version is expected soon.

The whole iPhone “jailbreaking” phenomenon is interesting for a couple of reasons. The most obvious of these is that it proves iPhone owners have an interest in running software on their devices that Apple and AT&T disapprove of. This suggests that although the iPhone is quite popular, it might be even more popular if Apple stopped controlling it so tightly. At the very least, it shows there is demand for applications that Apple thinks are “inappropriate” somehow.

Another reason iPhone jailbreaking is significant is that it provides an undisputed example of how a security weakness in Apple’s Mac OS X operating system could be exploited by a malicious coder. As Apple and its fans often proudly state, the iPhone operating system is based on the Apple Mac OS X operating system. In some ways, it could be argued that the iPhone and its OS are Apple’s most secure product. Apple controls the hardware completely. Users can’t upgrade it in any significant way, such as adding more internal storage or replacing the CPU chip. Apple controls, or at least attempts to control, the software in a similar manner. Apple installs all the OS upgrades via iTunes, controls what content gets stored on the device, and even decides whose applications are permitted to run on the device. In other words, that platform represents Apple’s best efforts to lock down its hardware and OS.

Still, in spite of Apple’s effort, the iPhone continues to be jailbroken. In security terms, the “hackers” are able to break through Apple’s security precautions, modify the contents of the device, and run unauthorized applications on it. This is exactly the same thing as if a hacker constructed a specially-designed web page to tempt Mac users into visiting it, then used a security weakness in Mac OS X to slip a virus, worm, or “bot client” on it. In other words, jailbreaking the iPhone (which runs OS X) is essentially the same as breaking into a Mac (which also runs OS X). (I know the iPhone OS is a “subset” of the full OS X software, but the principle holds.)

My point isn’t to suggest that OS X’s security is weaker than that of Linux or Windows. After all, the definition of “weaker” is subjective and could be misleading. I’m merely suggesting (as I always do) that although historically there have been few malware infections on the Mac OS X platform, that doesn’t mean the platform is immune to malware. Mac users should take the same types of precautions that other computer users do, such as making sure their firewall is enabled (it is disabled by default in Leopard!), that they have current antivirus software running, do most of their work in “non-administrator” and “non-root” accounts, and be careful about what they download. The fact that there is a Mac botnet active on the Internet is evidence that some malware writers are targeting and exploiting the Mac platform. The bad guys have made use of this botnet to conduct a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on certain web sites, so it’s not an idle threat. Make no mistake, there are people out there looking to exploit Mac users and gain control of their systems. Maybe there aren’t many, and maybe they’ve been quiet so far, but there may come a time when they become much more active and visible. You want to be proactive and prepared when that happens, rather than scrambling at the last minute to find tools to protect yourself. Some simple and inexpensive precautions now can protect you for years to come.

According to a post on The Register, four U.S. Senators have asked the acting FCC chairman to review whether mobile phone makers should be allowed to enter into exclusive contracts with wireless service providers. The senators’ thinking is that exclusivity agreements may “unfairly restrict consumer choice or adversely impact competition in the commercial wireless marketplace.”

Even though The Register reports that this is “a direct shot across Apple and AT&T’s shared bow”, I have to wonder if Apple itself isn’t behind this. At the recent Apple Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC), Apple indicated that it was AT&T’s fault that they wouldn’t have MMS support in the iPhone until late in the summer, and that tethering support was not likely to be coming from AT&T soon. It’s even said that “AT&T’s network has been commonly regarded as the iPhone’s weakest link for as long as there have been iPhones (especially 3G ones).”

There was talk a couple of months ago about Apple inking a deal in the U.S. with Verizon to distribute the iPhone. The problem with those rumors is that it would imply that Apple had a way out of its deal with AT&T. But sources in the USA Today article linked above indicate that the Apple/AT&T agreement is good until some time in 2010. To get out of that deal early, it’s likely that Apple would have to pay through the proverbial nose to get AT&T to let go.

But let’s imagine a completely hypothetical scenario. Let’s assume that Apple really is fed up with AT&T, and wants out of its agreement now. And let’s assume AT&T is unwilling to play along. At the same time, Apple would really like to hurt the Palm Pre and Sprint, arguably its closest iPhone competitor right now. How might it do that? In this entirely hypothetical scenario, Apple could approach some lobbyists to pressure the FCC into ruling that handset exclusivity deals are anti-competitive. How does this accomplish all of Apple’s goals?

If such deals were ruled illegal, suddenly the Apple/AT&T agreement is null and void. Apple wins. It can start selling iPhones to any carrier whose networks its device supports. AT&T might be hopping mad about this, but Apple would be free to sell the iPhone through any carrier, just like it theoretically wants to do. Not entirely coincidentally (I suspect) that DOESN’T include Sprint with its CDMA based network. Having dealt with carriers on multiple continents, Apple already has experience adjusting the iPhone to work with carriers other than AT&T, so adapting it for other U.S. carriers would probably be relatively trivial.

At the same time, killing handset exclusivity deals in general also kills the deal between Palm and Sprint. Instead of focusing its development resources on improving the Pre and making it more competitive with the iPhone, Palm will have to expend effort adjusting the Pre to work with other carriers (something it would have done eventually, but is now being forced to do sooner). This would be an unplanned change to Palm’s Pre business plan. This sudden shift in focus would likely set the development of new features for the Pre back by several months, giving Apple even more time to improve the iPhone (relative to itself and the Palm Pre) and market the iPhone to other carriers. Given that many feel the Palm Pre is what will save Sprint as a company, the timing of this senatorial interest in handset exclusivity certainly seems very suspicious. It would potentially leave Sprint with a handset stuck at today’s functionality level (which, while quite good, is not yet superior to the iPhone in many areas) and a handset which is no longer exclusively a Sprint offering.

Outside the U.S., the proposed FCC ruling would not affect Apple (since the FCC has no control outside the U.S.). Apple can continue having exclusive deals with foreign carriers as long as it likes, at least where such deals are legal. Again, Apple wins.

There really isn’t a down-side for Apple in this scenario… at least none that I can see. If the agreements stand, Apple keeps selling iPhones through AT&T until the agreement runs out next year. If they’re struck down, Apple can sell iPhones through any carrier it wants to work with, and the Palm Pre (and Sprint – who couldn’t sell the iPhone anyway) takes a hit in the process.

Remember, the scenario I’m describing above is entirely fictional as far as I know. I have absolutely no knowledge or evidence that Apple has anything to do with this sudden interest by the U.S. Senate in cellphone handset exclusivity. This is entirely speculation on my part… it just happens to be speculation that meshes well with known facts and observations.

As Ars Technica and other sites have reported, Microsoft has made a step toward pushing its employees away from competitors’ mobile phones. Reportedly part of its cost-cutting measures, Microsoft has begun denying employee reimbursement for cellular data plans unless they’re using phones based on Windows Mobile. That means Microsoft will no longer be paying for iPhone and Blackberry data plans.

In the short term, this will no doubt help Microsoft save a few dollars. In the longer term, it’s likely to benefit Microsoft in a lot of other ways. For example, if its employees are “coerced” into using Windows Mobile phones as a result of this shift in policy, that should help the company understand where it can improve Windows Mobile in the future. Users familiar with the Blackberry will undoubtedly put pressure on their peers to develop for Windows Mobile the things they perceive to be superior in the Blackberry platform. Users familiar with the iPhone and other smartphones will put pressure on the developers to enhance the Windows Mobile experience in other ways. In the end, it may make Windows Mobile a much better competitor than it is today. As Ars Technica notes, “Windows Mobile 6.5 may include tons of improvements, but it’s still a long way off from putting Microsoft back in the game (not to mention it’s still not yet available), so even with the incentive to move to Windows Mobile, I doubt many Microsoft employees will make the switch anytime soon. Maybe next year, when Windows Mobile 7.0 is expected, Microsoft employees will start switching.”

The folks at ABC News present a comparison of the iPhone and the Palm Pre in a video segment. The comparison lasts about 10 seconds and basically indicates that they like both phones, but the iPhone’s app store gives it a big advantage over the Pre. The Pre’s app store contains very little right now, compare to the iPhone’s 30,000+ apps. The segment on ABC News features USA Today’s Ed Baig, who penned a comparison of the two devices on that paper’s web site. Here are a few of the highlights from the comparison:

• “I’ve been testing the Pre for more than two weeks and like it a lot. Pre is easy on the eyes. I can’t think of a more comfortable cellphone in my hand. It has a lovely screen for taking in YouTube videos or browsing the web. The ‘always-connected’ software foundation at its code, which Palm designed from scratch and calls WebOS, is slick and rife with possibilities.”
• The Pre allows you to bring in phone numbers, calendar entries, and email accounts from Google, Facebook, and Microsoft Exchange (Outlook) and consolidate them in one place.
• The Pre allows you to keep multiple applications open at one time and switch between them with a swipe of the finger.
• “…I encountered occasional sluggishness and bugs…I also longed for the visual voice mail feature of the iPhone… And I wish the Pre had more third-party applications at launch.” (Bear in mind that the first iPhone was buggy at launch and had no third-party applications until much later.)
• Sprint’s voice and data plans are priced aggressively. A monthly voice/data plan with 450 “anytime” minutes goes for $69.99. An unlimited voice and data plan goes for $99.99 a month. Plans include unlimited text, picture, and video messaging, plus Sprint GPS navigation and Sprint TV.
• “Pre is 3.9 inches high by 2.3 inches wide and two-thirds of an inch thick – shorter but thicker than the iPhone. The compact, slightly curvy design results in a screen that’s a tad smaller than the iPhone’s.”
• “As with the iPhone, the Pre has sensors that change the orientation of the screen when you turn it to its side. Another sensor makes the screen go dark when you hold the phone to your ear during a call.” (In other words, two of the same features found in the iPhone.)
• “You can sync Pre with iTunes, just as if it were an iPhone or iPod. Well, there’s at least one difference. You can’t sync music or video saddled with digital copy restrictions. Nor can you buy iTunes music directly from the pre.” (You can, however, buy MP3s directly from the Amazon MP3 store on the Pre… though for some reason you need to be on wi-fi to download it.)
• The Pre’s web browser, like the Safari browser in the iPhone, doesn’t support Flash video.
• “The Pre has a better camera than the iPhone, though that’s not saying much.”
• “…the Pre, unlike the iPhone, comes with an easily removable battery.”
• “Though a splurge at $70, Palm has come up with a nifty accessory called Touchstone that lets you charge the Pre without a cable, by putting it on top of the dock.”

As I said in my own commentary, the iPhone still has advantages over the Pre. It’s more recognizable (largely due to Apple’s seemingly 24×7 ad campaign), there are more apps for it (though that is likely to change over time), and it’s a more mature device than the Pre. On the other hand, the Pre has advantages as well. It’s got a hardware keyboard, a better camera, a swappable battery, a potentially cheaper service contract, and (based on the “anti-AT&T buzz” at the recent WWDC) it’s not tied to AT&T (though I know there are many people not fond of Sprint, either).

In my recent post on the Palm Pre, I suggested that Microsoft needs to get its act together with respect to Windows Mobile if it wants to remain in the market for long.  Reader “Joshua” commented that I did Windows Mobile a disservice in that article, and he may be right.

Windows Mobile is a very functional OS.  Microsoft provides some great development tools for Windows Mobile, comparable to those offered for the desktop version of Windows. 

As one simple example, the iPod Touch has a decent web browser, but it doesn’t allow you to download software or media files onto the device from the web sites you visit.  Windows Mobile allows that.  I don’t have to use a special sync software from Microsoft to get files onto the device.  I can put music or a movie on the phone without an “iTunes equivalent”.

My Windows Mobile phone incorporates a micro SDHC slot, which the iPhone and iPod Touch do not.  This makes it easy to shuttle pictures and other media between the phone and computer.  There are ways to do this with the iPod Touch and iPhone, of course, but there’s no SD slot.

But Windows Mobile has some significant issues.  Microsoft has addressed some of this in the upcoming Windows Mobile 6.5 update, though my phone as it is right now exhibits all the issues I describe below.

First, every Windows Mobile device I’ve ever used periodically wakes itself up.  I remember reading that it does this to perform maintenance activities, check calendar appointments, etc.  Why it has to activate the screen when it does this, I don’t know.  Worse, why it can’t always remember to shut off when it’s finished is inexcusable.  On the day I visited the Sprint store to look at the Pre, I pulled my HTC Mogul out of my pocket and it was completely dead.  It had been charged the previous day, so there was no reason for it to be dead, yet it was.  I’ve seen this on non-phone Windows Mobile devices going back several releases.  I’ve never seen it happen on the old Palm Pilots, the iPod Touch or iPhone, or Blackberry.  I recognize that this might be a hardware issue, but why isn’t Windows Mobile smart enough to realize that no one is using it and shut itself off before it drains the battery?

My Windows Mobile phone requires me to remove a “hidden” stylus in order to interact with some applications because their interface elements are too small to touch with a finger.  There’s no reason a modern smartphone OS should need a stylus.  This is addressed somewhat in Windows Mobile 6.5, but I suspect Microsoft will need time to sort out issues with this. 

Then there’s the mobile version of Internet Explorer.  Functionally, it’s at about the same level as the Windows (desktop) version of Internet Explorer was at version 3.0 (as opposed to today’s 8.0).  Apple has been making a killing in the consumer space with the iPhone because its browser is genuinely superior to Mobile Internet Explorer.  Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t really like Safari compared to Firefox, but “Mobile Safari” is way, way better than the crappy version of IE bundled on my phone.  The Skyfire browser for Windows Mobile is far better than Mobile IE, but even it isn’t as easy to work with as the iPhone browser.  (Skyfire is better in several ways, but not as easy to work with.)

While Windows Mobile does look “dated” compared to the iPhone or Pre, I don’t need the eye candy.  I’m more interested in having a smartphone that doesn’t randomly go dead, doesn’t require a tiny little stylus to be kept in it, and can display relatively modern web pages properly.  My current Windows Mobile phone fails those criteria.  In the end, I don’t much care which mobile OS my phone uses, as long as it works well.

I’ve read a lot about the new Palm Pre phone lately. Since I had the day off, and I’m already a Sprint customer, I decided to go take a look at the phone at my local Sprint store. After spending about 10 uninterrupted minutes with the phone, here are my quick observations:

• The web browser in the Pre is based on WebKit, just like Safari on the iPod/iPhone. As such, it renders web pages every bit as well as Mobile Safari. And given the speed of the Sprint wireless network in my area, pages load impressively quickly, too.
• It only took a few seconds to get used to the interface, which is iPhone-like, though a little lighter on the eye candy (by which I mean it tends to use eye candy where it’s appropriate and only to the degree necessary to get a point across). In spite of that, I found it as fun to use as the iPod Touch.
• The screen is gorgeous, and made the iPod Touch screen seem a little bit “cartoonish” in comparison.
• The touch screen responds instantly to touches and gestures, though there is just the briefest hint of a delay between touching the screen and getting a response.
• The built-in GPS application was great, and is based on Google maps. It launched and displayed my exact location in a matter of maybe 2-3 seconds. It would definitely be useful in an unfamiliar location.
• I watched a sample video on the device. It played without any stuttering and the image quality was at least as good as what I see on my iPod Touch.
• The hardware keyboard looks cramped, but I found that I could actually “type” on it more quickly than I could the iPod/iPhone’s on-screen keyboard.
• The device had a solid feel, maybe not as solid as the iPod Touch, but more solid than my HTC Mogul (which is no slouch either). It’s light and comfortable to hold.
• The images people had taken in the store with the built-in camera were excellent. They were head-and-shoulders above anything I have gotten with the Mogul and certainly better than any other cell phone camera I’ve seen or used. I could actually imagine printing some of these pictures.
• Unlike my Mogul, which is a Windows Mobile device, the Pre connected instantly and effortlessly to the Sprint network. It usually takes the Mogul several seconds to “warm up” that connection.
• If Microsoft doesn’t get its act together, and quick, it may as well get out of the smartphone market. Between the Pre, the iPhone, and the Blackberry, I no longer see the point of Windows Mobile. If I had it to do over again, I would not be using this device… and I used to love Windows Mobile (before it was used in cell phones and Palm was its main competitor).
• Apple timed the new iPhone OS at the right moment, since it includes some of the things that make the Pre impressive, like multi-tasking. It’s very cool to have multiple phone apps running at once, just as it was once really cool to have multiple apps running simultaneously in “Classic” Mac OS. (Yes, I’m dating myself there.)
• The Palm Pre app store, compared to what Apple has right now, is pretty much just a “placeholder”. Apple definitely has the upper hand there. However, if Palm makes the SDK available free and encourages Pre developers, I see no reason just about any iPhone app out there right now couldn’t be written for the Pre. Granted, there’s not much there now, but it’s growing. The iPhone didn’t have 10,000 apps overnight.
• My local store has the Pre on a waiting list. I was told unofficially that they have 11 people on the list right now and get shipments of 20 units every few days. While people clearly aren’t camped out on the street to get the phone, there’s definitely an interest in it and it looks like Palm and Sprint have a success on their hands.
• Depending on your needs, you can get a data and voice plan for the Pre as low as $69.99 from Sprint. That includes their “unlimited” data usage plan, 450 “anytime” minutes, and unlimited night/weekend minutes… plus other features. For $99.99 you can have unlimited anytime minutes and unlimited data. That’s not bad when compared with the iPhone and AT&T.
• The Pre’s retail price is $549. If you’re an eligible Sprint customer, you can get the Pre for $199 at my local store after rebates and other discounts. At that price, it’s comparable with the iPhone (though not cheaper).

The above sums up the “positive” side of the Pre. I don’t have a lot of negative things to say about it, though:

• I know the Pre is primarily supposed to be a “cloud based” device, but I’d still like to see more local storage on it than 8GB.
• I’d also really like to see a micro SDHC slot (or two) in the device, as this would make it possible to download information or media from the Internet to the device and transfer it to a PC or Mac.
• The iPod/iPhone seemed a little tiny bit better at figuring out what link I was trying to tap on in the web browser, though I don’t think I actually got the wrong link in the Pre at any point.
• The built-in keyboard gets a lot of criticism for being small and oriented toward a “portrait” view only, and some of that criticism is definitely justified. While I found it easier to use than the iPhone/iPod keyboard, I can easily see where fatter fingers or bigger hands than mine would have a lot of trouble with it. The keyboard on my HTC Mogul is superior to both.

In the final analysis, I was very impressed with the Pre. In fact, in six months when I’m eligible to get the Pre at something closer to that $199 price than the $549 retail price, I fully expect to walk out of a Sprint store owning one. With any luck, the next-generation model will solve the keyboard, app store, and storage issues, making it a very worthy competitor to the iPhone.

Would I advise anyone with an iPhone to run out and get the Pre? No. I would admit that overall the iPhone is probably still the superior device. However, if you are looking for a smartphone and you’re not already an AT&T customer, you might want to visit your local Sprint store and give the Pre a test drive. If you don’t like it, well, there are always the Blackberry and the iPhone…

According to The Register, RIM’s Blackberry Curve outsold Apple’s iPhone in the first quarter of 2009, according to a survey conducted by the NPD Group. Of course, it helps that Verizon was giving the phones away during February and March as part of a buy one, get one free deal. The Blackberry Curve also costs half what the iPhone costs, which no doubt helped its sales as well. Still, 3 of the top 5 smartphones in the first quarter of 2009 were RIM Blackberry devices, with the iPhone 3G and T-Mobile G1 being the other two.

CNET TV’s Buzz Report covered why the iPhone sucks. To quote the host of the show, Molly Wood:

“…here’s the thing. Now that almost everyone everybody who wants one actually has an iPhone, we’ve all come to the same realization. It kinda sucks. The new iPhone could cure cancer, and I still wouldn’t buy it because of AT&T. Plus, it won’t cure cancer. It probably could, but Apple won’t let it. So instead, it will cause cancer, and about a million stress-related diseases, due to how IT DOESN’T WORK! And this is actual news, not just a rant. Reports have been everywhere lately. Some combination of the iPhone radio and AT&T service is giving almost every customer everywhere fits of rage about this thing’s flaky service, its almost total lack of 3G reception, its slow to respond radio, and generally pathetic coverage range. And don’t get me started about how you’ll pay almost $100 a month for a phone that doesn’t work anywhere. I don’t care how many apps it has. People wanna call me. And text me. And they can’t. The Palm Pre could be about as good as X-Men Origins: Wolverine and I am still paying my early termination fee to AT&T with a smile on my face!”

Later in the show, she reports:

“Also this week, Apple is warning that its earbuds can give you an electrical shock in dry windy conditions. They say you should try to keep the phone in your pocket, not take it out too often, maybe use hand lotion, try wearing natural fibers, stuff like that.. not that their product is high-maintenance or anything. It just requires a new wardrobe… and cocoa butter.”

Sounds like the bloom is off the iPhone “rose” over at CNET TV.

On May 18, 2009, BusinessWeek posted an interesting piece in its China Economic Review area entitled “Why China Won’t Fall for the iPhone” in which reasons are given for why Apple’s phone is unlikely to be the success in China that it is in other parts of the world.

According to the article, Chinese mobile operator China Unicom was the most natural partner for the iPhone in China, but Apple’s talks with them “dragged, reportedly on the need to disable the iPhone’s built-in WiFi to conform to Chinese law and Unicom’s desire to include (horrors!) its own music player.” (Yeah, the idea of replacing the iPhone music player strikes me as very odd, too… but I’m sure they had their reasons.)

BusinessWeek suggests one reason the iPhone won’t succeed in China is that the devices are expensive. In the U.S., the high-end iPhone model costs $300 but requires a two-year service contract that costs $70 per month. A “no contract” phone costs $700. Black market iPhone prices in China are in the $800 range. BusinessWeek says that “Premium phones sell in China, but with new TD-SCDMA handsets retailing for less than US$250, the iPhone is in a different league. Furthermore, 3G service plans here are in the range of $25-45 per month, suggesting a relatively low subsidy for all but the heaviest (and richest) users. Rumors of a low-cost iPhone are promising, but unconfirmed.”

The article goes on to suggest that one of the success factors for the iPhone are application sales. While an App Store has been launched in China for the iPod Touch, it is in English (as are many of the applications). There is a better selection of Chinese-language applications for “jailbroken” phones and players, but cellular carriers won’t get a cut of those sales and it won’t be a selling point for them. According to BusinessWeek, “the majority of mobile application companies in China develop for Java or Nokia’s Symbian operating system. Most won’t bother to rewrite applications for a niche phone, especially given Apple’s control-freakery concerning what applications it permits in its store.”

Perhaps the most telling part of the article (as far as predicting the possible success of the iPhone) is their statement that “iPods are the world’s best music players and few Chinese will pay a premium for them…. [snip]… Like iPods and Apple Macs, the iPhone itself will remain a curiosity for China’s cognoscenti.” In other words, the Chinese may appreciate the good qualities of the iPhone and iPod, but don’t feel the devices warrant a premium price – or the price is at least out of range of their pocketbooks.

The price of the iPhone and the lack of Chinese language applications for it are not the iPhone’s only problems in the Chinese market. Back in December 2007, we discussed how the iPhone faces a number of other hurdles getting into China. Specifically, Chinese telecom providers don’t generally share service revenue with handset makers. Revenue sharing is a key part of the iPhone business model. If Apple can’t share in the revenue, it will have to make up for the lost income by raising the initial price of the device, and as we discussed above, that’s not going to help it gain market share.

We also discussed that Chinese cell phone customers are accustomed to switching cellular carriers to get a better deal on their service plan, which means that phones which are locked to a specific carrier will be less popular because people will want to be able to switch to a carrier who offers a better deal. Locking the iPhone to the preferred cellular service partner is also a key part of the iPhone business model. If Apple is forced to unlock the phones in China, as it as had to do in other countries, iPhone customers are probably going to be very disappointed to find that some features of the devices don’t work on carriers without the servers and protocols in place to handle some of its features. The word of mouth “bad press” this causes could further hamper Apple’s ability to sell the phones in China.

Perhaps it’s time for Apple to re-think its iPhone business model. Having a single cellular provider for the iPhone made sense in its earliest days. It allowed Apple to work with a limited number of carriers to fine-tune the device and the infrastructure supporting it. It allowed Apple to negotiate a revenue-sharing deal with the carriers. But the iPhone is now a successful product, and it’s likely that its partners like AT&T (here in the US) have captured as many of its competitors’ customers as they’re likely to get. The only way to grow the installed base of iPhones at this point is to reach more cellular customers by offering the phone through other carriers. By refusing to take the iPhone on Apple’s terms, China may be doing the world a favor by causing Apple to re-think its iPhone business model.

If Apple sticks to its guns and continues to operate as it has to this point, it’s giving its competitors an opportunity to improve their devices, perhaps in time making them “good enough” to challenge the iPhone. Do you think those competitors will opt for a single-carrier model like Apple’s? Probably not.

According to The Register, update 2.2.1 appears to damage the Wi-Fi circuitry in the iPhone:

“iPhone users who found their Wi-Fi failing after the last firmware upgrade are starting to identify what went wrong, while some have managed to get Apple to replace iPhones with handsets taht have never seen 2.2.1.

The damage caused by the upgrade is irreversible, rolling back to a previous version does not fix the problem, while a spell in the freezer or using an almost-dead battery does get Wi-Fi working again temporarily – confirming that the problem is heat related.”

The Register says that “Apple is being as unresponsive as ever” regarding the problem.

Apparently, iPhone owners are getting upset with the attention they receive whenever they pull out the device to make a telephone call. CNET’s Justin Yu reports that a company called ZweiPhone has a solution to the problem: a set of stickers for the back of the iPhone that bear images of obsolete phones and are designed to mask your iPhone’s true appearance.

Writer Nick Farrell on the Fudzilla web site posted an item on March 30, 2009, indicating that Apple’s own lawyers appear to be using jailbroken iPhones. Farrell writes that “Looking at a patent application for the iPhone biometric security patent, Engadget worked out that they were looking at screen shots of a jailbroken iPhone. Yep, the lawyers who designed the iPhone patent clearly did not want to work with the telco that Steve Jobs told them they had to work with and had installed software which was deemed heretical in St. Steve’s sight.”

According to Macworld, Apple and AT&T are being sued for “over-promising and under-delivering on their claims of fast Internet access of the iPhone 3G.” Plaintiff Damone Dickerson claims that Apple misrepresented the speed, strength, and performance of the 3G network. Dickerson claims he could only connect to the 3G network a fraction of the time and that it didn’t provide “full and continual service”. He says that most of the time he receives no 3G connectivity at all. He is seeking to force Apple and AT&T to correct iPhone 3G labeling and advertising in addition to paying financial damages.

As Macworld reports, “This isn’t the first lawsuit claiming Apple and AT&T misrepresented the speed of the 3G network. The companies were sued in San Jose, San Diego, Alabama, Florida, and Texas. Apple has asked that a similar case in New York be dismissed.”

The popularity of the iPhone appears to be something of a double-edged sword for Apple. On the one hand, they’re gaining lots of new customers who previously hadn’t owned an Apple product, which is no doubt good for their bottom line and sales of other Apple products. On the other hand, many of these people are unfamiliar with Apple and how it tends to advertise its products, which leads to misinterpretation and disappointment. Apple likes to describe its products using “absolutes” like these:

“The first…”

“The most powerful…”

“The most advanced…”

“The fastest…”

While all companies tout the benefits of their products in their advertising and downplay the negatives, Apple has a tendency to deliver the positives as “absolutes” (as evidenced above, the “fastest” or “most powerful” or “most advanced”) and ignore the negatives completely. This sets the company up for lawsuits from people who are new to Apple’s way of advertising its products.

Apple fans tend to take these somewhat-arrogant phrases as typical Apple “spin” and don’t get too upset if they prove not to be true 100% of the time, in all circumstances. For example, an Apple fan won’t get too bent out of shape when they travel from New York City to a tiny Midwestern town and don’t find 3G network access there. They’ll be disappointed, of course, but they won’t likely rush to find an attorney.

Consider the following statement taken directly from Apple’s web site for the iPhone (as of this writing on March 21, 2009):

A person unfamiliar with Apple could easily read the above blurb and interpret it to say “Wherever I go in the world, I will have 3G speed available to my iPhone 3G.” After all, that’s exactly what Apple says, and there aren’t any phrases qualifying where and how that access is affected. If you look on the same page, way down at the bottom, in very small type, in a very light color against a white background, you’ll see Apple has a little more to say about the subject:

(Highlighting provided to make the text easier to read.)

It’s not that Apple hasn’t warned consumers that iPhone 3G speed “depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, 3G/EDGE connectivity, feature configuration, usage, the Internet, and many other factors” and that “actual results may vary”. Clearly, they have. But how many consumers will read that first statement “3G speed. Worldwide.” and decide that’s just what they need, without bothering to scroll way down the page and pick out that hard-to-read type implying that the speed and availability aren’t always available everywhere under all conditions?

I’m not saying this is entirely Apple’s fault. It isn’t. After all, they ARE explaining on the page where the claim is made that it depends on a lot of factors. If consumers don’t read that text, well, it’s their mistake to assume that all the marketing speak is absolutely true, in all cases. On the other hand, a little wordsmithing to Apple’s “3G speed. Worldwide.” blurb above would clarify the situation without taking anything away from the phone or AT&T’s service. For example, it could have read:

3G speed. Worldwide.
When you travel around the world with your iPhone 3G, you’ll have Internet access wherever compatible 3G networks exist, and it will be as fast as circumstances allow. iPhone 3G also makes it possible…

Potential iPhone 3G customers would have a harder time misinterpreting that blurb to mean that 3G access is always available, everywhere, at full speed. Sure, this version doesn’t deliver the punch of “fast access to the Internet… around the world” but it’s more truthful, more accurate, and less likely to result in a lawsuit. Can you imagine trying to convince a judge or jury that the above blurb convinced you that your iPhone would always deliver fast access everywhere you went? Try it again with Apple’s version. It’s easy to imagine an attorney saying to the judge and/or jury, “Apple tells you that you’ll have 3G speed, worldwide, right there in the big bold type. Right below it, they reiterate that the iPhone 3G has ‘fast access to the Internet and email over cellular networks around the world.’ It’s only far down the page, in tiny little type, in a color that almost blends into the background, that they bother to say that access isn’t really worldwide and isn’t always fast. This kind of ‘deception’ is why you should award my client $X in damages.” Would a judge or jury buy it? Maybe. Maybe not.

The problem with claims like “the most powerful operating system” is that they’re really subjective. There is no way to conclusively prove that Mac OS X is (or isn’t) the most “powerful” operating system because there is no single definition of “powerful” that we can universally agree on. Maybe “powerful” to me implies the ability to run on the largest set of hardware available in the marketplace (i.e., I have the “power” to run it anywhere). If that’s my definition, then Windows is more powerful than OS X (since OS X only runs on a specific set of Apple hardware and Windows runs on a lot more), and Linux is probably more powerful than both. Your definition might focus on something else, like how fast it renders video or copies files. And you know what? We’re both right… because we both define “more powerful” differently.

I respect and admire the fact that Apple is proud of its products. I respect that they go to great lengths to make their products fast, easy to use, and attractive to look at. I respect the fact that many people around the world (including me, once upon a time) covet their Apple products and believe that they’re the best at whatever it is that they do. It’s good that Apple and its customers take that kind of pride in the products (at least, I think it is). But absolutes like “the fastest”, “the best”, “the most powerful”, “the best looking”, etc., are subjective, hard to prove, and tend to come across as arrogant. Apple could save itself a lot of trouble, and probably not affect its sales a bit, by just dialing back on the absolutes a little (e.g., calling OS X “one of the most powerful operating systems” or just “a powerful operating system”). But as Dennis Miller often says, “that’s my opinion… I could be wrong.”

I’ve covered this before, but not in quite this detail. As an iPod Touch owner, I find it very inappropriate that Apple blocks App Store availability for applications that it deems “offensive” or “competitive” with its own plans for the device. If you’re one of the people who defend their position, perhaps another look at the situation could help you see my point.

The iPhone is essentially a portable computer running a stripped-down variant of Mac OS X. Let’s imagine for a moment that Apple had instituted an App Store when it launched OS X. Let’s further imagine that Apple had exercised the same kinds of restrictions on its Mac App Store (hereafter “MAS”) that it currently uses to judge iPhone applications. What might the Mac software landscape look like?

• Safari: Since Apple provides a web browser with OS X, it would block from the MAS competing browsers like Firefox, Opera, Camino, etc.
• iPhoto and Aperture: Say goodbye to Adobe Photoshop, since it competes with these.
• iTunes: Say goodbye to VLC and other media players for the Mac.
• QuickTime: It’s a video codec, and an Apple product, meaning all other video codecs out there would be competitive and therefore eliminated.
• iWork: Say goodbye to Microsoft Office, OpenOffice.org, and any other office productivity suite.
• Boot Camp: Parallels and VMWare Fusion compete with this, so they’re blocked.
• Final Cut: This is your only video editing option aside from iMovie.
• Preview and OS X: These provide PDF viewing and generation functionality, so there’s no need for the competitive Adobe Acrobat products.
• iWeb: Adobe Dreamweaver competes with this, so it’s banned.
• Stuffit: There are built-in file compression tools in OS X (tar, gzip, etc.) so this app gets blocked.
• Games: Depending on how broadly you define “offensive”, many action games would get blocked because of excessive violence, profanity, sexual content, etc.

These are just a few examples. Remember, in this scenario we’re assuming that you can’t install an application on the Macintosh except through the Mac App Store. If Apple bans an app from the MAS, it’s no longer an option for you unless you “jailbreak” your Mac and run the risk of “bricking” it.

In other words, many of the third-party applications that Mac users love and rely on wouldn’t exist on the Mac if Apple exercised the same tight control of that platform that it does of the iPhone.

According to RCR Wireless’ Colin Gibbs, while Apple appears to be gearing up to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other copyright law to make it illegal to jailbreak an iPhone or iPod Touch, the company should walk away from the fight. Gibbs reports that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is lobbying the U.S. Copyright Office to alter the DMCA to allow users to jailbreak the devices and purchase applications other than the ones in the Apple App Store. Skype and Mozilla have joined in the battle as well.

Apple’s point is that in order to jailbreak the iPhone, it’s necessary to modify the phone’s “bootloader” code which starts the device. Modifying that code alone is reportedly an “infringing” activity that breaks copyright law, so Apple submits that this is reason enough to deny users to jailbreak their devices. Gibbs responds that “Apple’s earnestness would be easier to buy if it hadn’t kept such tight reins on its App Sotre. The EFF’s filing points to ebooks and other applications that have been banned from the App Store due to content deemed ‘objectionable,’ and cites two offerings that ‘remain in limbo, victims of unexplained delays in Apple’s ‘approval’ process.”

Gibbs also points out that while Apple denied a South Park app because it contained “potentially offensive” content, users can download entire episodes of the show (as well as the feature film, which is probably even more “potentially offensive” than the show) from iTunes and use them on the device(s). If the show’s episodes and feature film aren’t too offensive to ban from iTunes, why would an app based on the show be any more offensive? Perhaps it’s because the app would play clips from the show on the device, potentially cannibalizing sales of episodes via iTunes?

Gibb suggests that Apple could lose the fight if Congress takes notice and a politician “eager to play David vs. Apple’s Goliath” gets involved. He says “that’s the last thing Apple wants” (and he’s probably right).

Apple’s problem stems, I believe, from what Gibbs describes as wanting to “have its cake and eat it too”. They are trying to protect their relationship with AT&T Mobility by attempting to prevent malware or highly controversial content from garnering negative attention to Apple or AT&T. They probably also feel that this lockdown is necessary to preserve the “customer experience” with the iPhone in its default form. However, Apple has placed itself in the position of censor who decides what content is objectionable, what apps are acceptable, and a monopolist who decides what kind of competition it will allow. These are all positions that run counter to American culture. We generally dislike censors, being told what to do, and being unable to compete in business as we see fit.

This whole situation is being made worse because Apple has become something of a victim of its own success. According to Apple Insider, “Apple’s ability to process iPhone developer agreements is quickly turning into a minor crisis as what was once a smooth process is rapidly turning into a months-long backlog that threatens to keep new developers out of the App Store.” Apparently, developers are facing expired contracts or not-yet-approved contracts to distribute their apps in the iPhone App Store. Apparently, there “isn’t even a system by which Apple can renew its existing deals” with developers. Apple Insider reports that developers are questioning whether they should continue to produce iPhone apps in the first place.

I’m not suggesting that Apple should completely drop the review process (believe it or not). I think it’s appropriate for them to evaluate an application in the App Store to ensure that it isn’t some kind of malware, that it appears to run properly on an unmodified iPhone, and that it essentially does what it’s claimed to do. That level of “censorship” would be enough to protect customers from “rogue” or “crappy” applications in lieu of some form of free trial mechanism that allows users to run an iPhone app before paying for it. However, blocking an application because it competes with something Apple itself planned to do, because it contains content that someone at Apple finds “offensive”, or bypasses iTunes to put content on the device shouldn’t be Apple’s call. Hopefully the folks at the Copyright Office will see things the same way and support jailbreaking, so that Apple will be forced (for economic reasons) to loosen its death grip on the device(s).

According to Marguerite Reardon of CNET, “Apple may have competition when it comes to selling applications for the iPhone, as developers decide to launch their own stores to hawk unauthorized apps for the device. The Wall Street Journal reported that a developer is planning to launch on Friday a new service called Cydia Store that could sell hundreds of iPhone applications. The apps aren’t available through Apple’s official store, and they require ‘jailbroken’ iPhones.”

Another developer, Rock Your Phone, also plans to sell unauthorized apps but says it won’t require the iPhones to be modified.

Research in Motion is planning a similar store for the Blackberry, and Google is creating an app store for its Android phones.

All this means Apple will have competition for the App Store, not just for the iPhone but from competitive phones as well.

In his article “The Mac slides, but not as badly as the PC market“, CNET blogger Matt Asay makes a suggestion to Apple about the iPhone that seems so absurd to me that I can’t twist it in any direction that it makes sense to me:

The reality is that Apple already does have a “low end” Internet device to offer the market. It’s called the iPhone. No, it doesn’t offer a full computing experience, but then, neither do Netbooks.

The difference in the iPhone’s favor, however, is that it comes with a host of applications unavailable on Windows- or Linux-based Netbooks: the App Store. True, most of these applications rarely get used after customers kick the tires on them, as CNET reports, but that’s the magic: the applications are so cheap, they’re disposable.

The real question for me will be whether Apple ever condescends to market the iPhone as a Netbook-type device: a comparable price tag with a nearly limitless (and cheap) application potential. I don’t think that it will, and I don’t think that it should.

Since I own both a netbook and an “iPhone equivalent” (the iPod Touch), Asay’s suggestion that Apple should market the iPhone as an alternative to the netbook makes very little sense to me, but it does make a tiny bit of sense…

If all you use your netbook for is to browse the web, read email, and play an occasional game of solitaire, then the iPhone is a good alternative. It will handle web browsing well enough (though it’s useless for Flash and, it seems, certain photographs). It’s fine for reading email, but less suitable for responding to emails at length. And it’s got plenty of games to keep you entertained. It’s a lot easier to lug around than a netbook. But the iPhone is not a replacement for a netbook.

Here’s why:

• Typing: The iPhone/Touch on-screen keyboard is adequate for URLs and short emails. For blogging or lengthy email responses, it sucks. My netbook’s keyboard is nearly full size and I can type on it almost as quickly as I can on my desktop.
• Office Productivity: The iPhone/Touch doesn’t have an equivalent to Microsoft Office, so I can’t make a quick change to a Word document, adjust a cell in a spreadsheet, or show someone a PowerPoint presentation on it. I can do all that in OpenOffice on my netbook.
• Web Browsing: The iPhone/Touch’s built-in Safari browser is probably the finest mobile browser I’ve used. Having said that, it can’t display Flash content, and I work with several sites where that’s a problem. Its small screen isn’t great for some web apps and web content. While my netbook’s screen (10″) isn’t ideal either, it’s a hell of a lot better than the iPhone/Touch. Plus, I have the option of using Internet Explorer or Firefox in addition to Safari. Oh, and I can download things on the netbook. I can’t do that on the Touch.
• USB Ports: My netbook has several USB ports. I can transfer files between my desktop and netbook with ease, using a USB flash drive. There aren’t any USB ports on the Touch, nor is there a flash memory slot I could use to transfer data. In a pinch I could even charge my Touch with my netbook.
• Downloading: Mobile Safari is prevented from downloading MP3 files or other content Apple doesn’t want you downloading. I can download anything I want to download on my netbook.
• Applications: While it’s true that the horde of applications in the App Store generally doesn’t have an equivalent on the netbook, so what? Do I need my netbook to make fart noises or simulate a level? My netbook boots Linux, Windows XP Pro, and Windows 7. If I was willing to violate the EULA, I could probably get it to run OS X. Talk about software options! Those are real applications people don’t abandon after a couple of days.
• Wired Computing: If I’m traveling and there’s a wired Ethernet connection handy, but no WiFi, my netbook has an Ethernet port and connects right away. With the iPhone, you’re out of luck if there’s no coverage and no WiFi, even if there is a wired network port.

Having said this, the netbook isn’t a replacement for the iPhone/Touch, either. You can’t slip it into a pocket and take it wherever you go. You can’t make cellular phone calls with a netbook. And, without an external device, there’s no GPS. The Touch and the netbook do make good traveling companions, however. I often slip the Touch into my pocket and tuck the netbook under my arm when I go to lunch. I would imagine that if Apple ever allows tethering, an iPhone and netbook would be a great traveling combo.

Bottom line: I think it would be foolish of Apple to try and position the iPhone against netbooks. While neither of them is a “full computing experience” the netbook comes a great deal closer than the iPhone – it just can’t be easily tucked in a pocket.

I suspect Apple to offer “something” that competes with netbooks this year. I don’t know if it will be a smaller MacBook or a larger tablet-like iPhone, but I suspect they will make some entry into the space if they can put an “Apple spin” on it. I’m even curious to see what they come up with.

In a rather ironic turn of events, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer attacked Apple’s closed iPhone ecosystem in a plea for openness, saying that “Openness is central because it’s the foundation of choice.” As Slashdot reports, this is interesting given Microsoft’s history of tying certain technologies together (such as Windows and Internet Explorer).

Should Apple open up the iPhone to third-party software and hardware? In some respects, I’ve been making the argument in favor of this for some time. If Apple truly wants to break into the enterprise market in a meaningful way and push Microsoft out, its “closed” system of hardware and software will have to go. Corporations don’t want to lock themselves into proprietary, closed systems and single-source products. This limits their options, makes them dependent on these external companies for survival, and doesn’t give them negotiating room for price and service. Most CIOs are savvy enough to realize that going down such a “proprietary” path in this economic climate is suicidal. They’re not going to do it.

If Apple is content to be primarily a consumer company with little enterprise presence, then they can afford to continue locking the iPhone to AT&T and being the only manufacturer allowed to produce computers to run Mac OS X. If, however, they want to push Microsoft out of the corporate landscapes, they’re going to need partnerships with other hardware makers and cellular carriers to provide corporate customers with the choices they need to “safely” choose an Apple solution.

That’s why I think it’s far more likely that corporations will migrate from Windows to Linux before migrating from Windows to the Mac. They can run Linux on a variety of hardware, choose from a variety of Linux distributions, and in many cases reduce costs. A Windows to Mac migration will likely mean increased hardware costs and fewer options in general. Even if Apple’s claims about security, performance, viruses, etc., hold up over time, the lack of choice and higher up-front cost will make Macs a hard sell in corporate environments.

CNET carried an interesting article today entitled “Most iPhone applications gathering dust” in which they report:

“…just 30 percent of people who buy an iPhone application actually use it the day after it was purchased, according to Pinch Media, which analyzed over 30 million downloads from Apple’s App Store. And the numbers plunge from there: after 20 days, less than 5 percent of those who downloaded an application are actively using it. The drop-off is worse for free applications.”

This data has apparently been backed up by other studies done last year when the App Store was a month old. CNET speculates on the reasons why this might be the case. The Pinch Media folks think that it’s because Apple has made it so easy to get applications on the iPhone, and that most applications are so relatively inexpensive, that people often purchase applications that sound interesting (and cheap) and later move on if they don’t find them of value. CNET wonders if the iPhone app market is saturated.

Actually, I think they might both be saying the same thing. As an iPod Touch owner, I have access to the iPhone app market through my device (though not all applications work with the Touch that work with the phone). I’ve downloaded and installed many applications, nearly all of them free apps, and found many that just weren’t as good as I hoped they’d be. I’ve deleted those after a few half-hearted attempts to use them. There are a couple that I keep because they’re actually useful to me. A couple I’ve paid for because I liked the “free” version enough or was confident it would be useful… and so far I haven’t bought an app that I haven’t liked and used. Still, it’s a chore to wade through the App Store to find an app if you know what you’re looking for, and worse if you don’t. So I suspect that this saturated marketplace causes people to do just what Pinch Media says they’re doing… they spy an app that might be useful and “since it’s only 99 cents” they buy it and load it up. When it proves to be less interesting than they expected it to be, they move on without deleting it. So the market saturation CNET suspects is very likely the cause of the phenomenon Pinch Media describes.

Adam Fisher-Cox of AppleTell asks a very valid question, “Why no WiFi syncing on the iPhone?“. He points out that there are certain obvious glaring omissions in the iPhone design, such as a lack of copy and paste functionality, but it seems like a no-brainer that Apple would have included synchronization via WiFi in the iPhone and iPod Touch. Like the readers of his article, I can see several ways that this would be of benefit.

Apple has “married” the iPhone and iPod Touch to its App Store. The only “official” way to load applications onto the iPhone/Touch is through the official Apple App Store. Unofficially, there are people who “jailbreak” the devices in order to load applications onto them that Apple doesn’t offer through the App Store. There is currently an argument brewing between Apple and others on the subject. The battlefield for this argument is the U.S. Copyright Office.

Apple says that existing “jailbreak” technologies all make unauthorized use of copyrighted code. Further, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) contains provisions against attempting to “unlock” copyrighted content that is protected by technical means, as the iPhone and iPod Touch are protected. Thus, Apple says, the very act of jailbreaking an iPhone or iPod Touch involves breaking copyright law and the DMCA, so it must therefore be illegal.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Mozilla argue that jailbreaking the devices is actually a protected activity under fair-use doctrines, and that the Copyright Office should grant an exemption to users who jailbreak their phones.

A Mozilla represenative told Computerworld that “Given the choice, would we work on a platform where the sole company controlling it makes us unwelcome, or would we work on a platform, like Linux, where we are welcome? The answer is going to be easy for us.”

According to CNET, Apple has prevented the South Park creators from distributing a South Park themed application via the App Store. The South Park application would apparently stream video from the show to a user’s iPod Touch or iPhone. Apple explained that it banned the application because it could be deemed “offensive” by some customers. CNET makes a good point when it says: “Once again, Apple’s taste-making policies for the App Store leave it in a curious position. The company’s decision to ban a book from the App Store for using dirty language, yet approve a fast-growing category of fart-related applications, has many wondering exactly what sort of standards are used to evaluate iPhone applications.”

According to CNN Money and Dow Jones, Apple is being sued over the technology it uses to “zoom” content displays in the iPhone and iPod Touch. The lawsuit, filed by a company called Picsel, alleges that the “devices incorporate Picsel-patented technology that facilitates rapid redrawing of content displayed on devices’ screens.”