[quote author=“Tommo_UK”]
I don’t mean outright defending of the comments left, just intelligent posts on his articles and polite rebuttals of some of the more obnoxious and inaccurate posts left on his blog.

Agreed! I appreciate his work, posts like How the chip falls at Apple are a breath of fresh air

I also like his rather balanced tone as he doesn’t try to overhype possible bullish scenarios for more hits.

Willrob, thanks for picking up that post about the SDK from iLounge - fascinating and great news, IMO, on the whole.

[quote author=“willrob”]iLounge has this “news” today:

Phone/iPod SDK: Apple to approve, distribute apps, limit add-ons
Feb. 29, 2008 | Category: iPhone Software

These purported limitations are not good (its a walled garden) and unlikely to what will actually be delivered. Most likely Apple has the possibility of implementing these restrictions, and they might be built in to the SDK, but can on a whim choose to implement them or really keep the iPhone free as a platform.

I think Apple has a real concern about security for the iPhone, and any vulnerability to poorly written code. I think screening proposed apps is a good idea. And iTunes is the perfect way to monitize the process. But I can also imagine that hackers may figure out a way to get unsupported apps on the iPhone/Touch, even if the phone isn’t unlocked but merely jailbroken.

But the enterprise apps will be given center stage by Apple, and I expect some demos this Thursday. Speaking of which, will this event be blogged? Audio Feed? has anyone heard how we can eavesdrop?

Interesting… in other words, if its free and unapproved by Apple, then you’re welcome to install it but totally at your own risk and don’t blame us if it bricks your iPhone:

Source: Apple may not restrict free iPhone apps

In spite of fears that Apple may impose tight restrictions on third-party iPhone applications developed with its upcoming SDK, the company may loosen those restrictions for free programs, Electronista has learned. Connected to the same sources which reported early access for select developers—sources which have since been confirmed as accurate—the new contact claims that free applications are not subject to the same rules that will guide paid software downloads. In this model, free software is unlikely to be subject to much if any scrutiny by Apple.

If accurate, the move is likely being made to encourage the development community for the iPhone as well as alternative business models that differ from services such as Handango, which often limit their downloads to paid content alone.

This system will change substantially for paid apps, however. In addition to a previously rumored review process and the necessity of sales through iTunes, Apple will reportedly take a portion of the cost of each app. The approach is similar both to its practices with the iTunes Store as well as to conventional mobile application services, many of which collect a share of the sales price as part of their core business models.

So I wonder if this morning’s story (posted at top of page) was deceptive FUD. Perhaps theJune/WWD conference part is also not true. Without all their previous lies to drive the price down, the weasels* are turning to the next unknown they can create misinformation about.

*weasels ©2006 Tommo_UK

Well the substantive items in the original story are exactly what I would expect: small delay; Apple certification; iTunes distribution only; an Apple chip and license needed to interface with the dock connector. I don’t see the story precluding widespread developer access. It’s only applications delivered into Apple’s certified environment that are controlled. Obviously if you install the developer tools on an iPhone you can install whatever you like, but don’t go running to Apple with problems. Apple will surely also offer ordinary users to enable installation of uncertified apps, after clicking on an acknowledgement of the risk they are taking with the reliability of built in apps, battery life etc.

If true, the Electronista story can’t mean literally what it says. There is no way to stop an app installing/working depending on whether the developer has been paid. More likely uncertified apps can exist outside Apple’s infrastructure paid or free, and can even be placed in the iTunes store if they are free, podcast style.

The unlimited data plans are one reason iPhone isn’t 3G; one way to cap use is to lower the data rate. But the unlimited plans were vital to Apple to kick start the mobile internet. I’m fairly sure the “unheard rates of data traffic” per user will moderate somewhat. The early adopters are the heaviest users.

I also don’t see this as so big a problem as the networks might pretend. What it’s going to do is drive adoption of more wifi in high density areas. In low density areas, users will just learn to live with contention and slow response. In other words, investing in the GSM data infrastructure isn’t the preferred way to handle the growth of the mobile internet.

[quote author=“sleepygeek”]The unlimited data plans are one reason iPhone isn’t 3G; one way to cap use is to lower the data rate. But the unlimited plans were vital to Apple to kick start the mobile internet. I’m fairly sure the “unheard rates of data traffic” per user will moderate somewhat. The early adopters are the heaviest users.

I also don’t see this as so big a problem as the networks might pretend. What it’s going to do is drive adoption of more wifi in high density areas. In low density areas, users will just learn to live with contention and slow response. In other words, investing in the GSM data infrastructure isn’t the preferred way to handle the growth of the mobile internet.

I am interested to see what the new data rates from AT&T will be for a 3G iphone.  Also wonder if they might include access to the AT&T Wifi network.  I would say $30 per month would be reasonable for unlimited data.

Pat

[quote author=“sleepygeek”]The unlimited data plans are one reason iPhone isn’t 3G; one way to cap use is to lower the data rate. But the unlimited plans were vital to Apple to kick start the mobile internet. I’m fairly sure the “unheard rates of data traffic” per user will moderate somewhat. The early adopters are the heaviest users.

I also don’t see this as so big a problem as the networks might pretend. What it’s going to do is drive adoption of more wifi in high density areas. In low density areas, users will just learn to live with contention and slow response. In other words, investing in the GSM data infrastructure isn’t the preferred way to handle the growth of the mobile internet.

A voice of reason.

This certainly becomes less of an issue as wifi becomes more common. There’s too much worry IMHO about the release of a 3G iPhone. The costs of infrastructure is more reason Apple is choosing exclusive carriers. The more concentrated the revenue stream, the more economically feasible the investment becomes for the chosen carrier.