Dan Frommer's post this morning over at Silicon Alley Insider suggests that one of the missing pieces from the competitive pie, as far as Google and Palm's mobile OS offerings are concerned, is a 3G-free & contractless device. Something, perhaps, like the iPod touch. Absent a way for consumers and developers to buy into the platform without the burden of a monthly cellphone contract, he argues, the two players are unlikely to build the critical mass of apps and app purchasers that would grant vitality and staying power in the face of the Apple/App Store ecosystem.

It's easy to see that the touch provides a great boost to the App Store juggernaut; about one-third of the 50 million-plus iPhone OS devices are estimated to be iPod touch units, and all those owners are potential app and music customers. Certainly there's an audience for Android (if not WebOS, which is more telephony-centric to my mind) on a disconnected gadget?

Unfortunately, Frommer's analysis is missing two key pieces of market data. Number one, as was adroitly pointed out by Joachim on Sunday's talkcast, there already is a contract-free developer handheld for Android, available for $399 from the Android Market... exactly what he proposes in the last paragraph of his story. There's also the new Archos 5 Internet Tablet, a consumer-grade, contract-free and phoneless Android tablet, ready for the eager Android personal media player buyers to snap up. (The equivalent contract-free Pre is a stark $899, and there is no 3G-less WebOS device that I can find.) Update: A commenter notes the Creative Zii Egg, another impending Android PMP that looks astonishingly like an Apple product.

That's where we come to the second market truth that Frommer missed, and it's a harsh one: Nobody knows, and nobody cares. Even a guy writing about this precise topic had no idea -- and apparently couldn't quickly discover from a casual search -- that these devices were already out in the field, despite frequent coverage of the Archos device on Engadget and elsewhere over the past few months. If there's any starker evidence that the market for non-phone Android and WebOS devices simply doesn't exist yet, I can't imagine what it would be.

Part of the reason for the iPod touch's success is that it clearly combined two already-successful products: the iPhone and the iPod. The 'elevator pitch' for the device ("It's an iPhone but with Wi-Fi instead of the phone") is simple and straightforward. Unfortunately for Android, there really isn't a dynamic personal media player market anymore that supports a phoneless entrant... it got eaten by the iPod.

I do think it would be healthy for the iPhone and for the portable OS market in general if developers and customers had more contract-free options on the other platforms. Still, the retroactive wish-fulfillment of Frommer's post doesn't bode well. "Oh, they already have that? Gosh."

The New York Observer is reporting that Time, Inc. executive VP John Squires has been making the rounds of other major publishing houses lately with one thing in mind: creating an iTunes-like magazine store for digital distribution of their titles. At this time, it appears that Time, Inc., Condé Nast, and Hearst are all planning on joining the alliance, with over 50 top magazines that would for sale in the store. Those titles include Sports Illustrated, Time, People, The New Yorker, Vogue, and O, The Oprah Magazine.

The as-yet-unnamed store doesn't plan on adding a new reader device to the mix. Instead, the consortium is looking at ways to distribute content to existing platforms such as the iPhone, Kindle, nook, BlackBerry, and the major computer operating systems. Reading the post, it seems to this writer that although Squires and Co. have a great idea, the execution of the plan might be doomed already. Quoting from the Observer article:

The deal is taking time to complete because it involves so many moving pieces.

"It's pretty complicated stuff," said a source. "The really, really hard part is that you've got so many different kinds of devices running on different operating systems. And how do you handle that? The consortium provides one point of contact for the consumer. When you come to the main store, you can get the content any way you want."

In addition to building up the store, each publisher will actually have to figure out how to build digital versions of their own magazines.

Apple's jumped into the Verizon versus AT&T fray, according to BusinessWeek, with a couple of new ads -- and, somewhat surprisingly, they come out in full defense of AT&T. Both ads show an iPhone user in the middle of a phone call who multitasks by looking up movie information, restaurant ratings, and many other things over AT&T's 3G network. The ads end with the question, "Can your phone and your network do that?" with a very prominent AT&T logo in the final seconds of the ads.

As I'm personally somewhat on the outside looking in at the U.S. telecom spats, I don't know how much US smartphone users really miss the ability to do simultaneous data browsing and phone calls while on Verizon's network. Based on what I've heard about AT&T's network reliability, however, there are some areas of the U.S. where you'll be lucky to be able to make and receive calls at all, or hold on to a call in progress, much less multitask in the manner depicted in these ads.

What's most interesting about these ads is how favorable they are to AT&T. It's no secret that Apple's been less than thrilled with AT&T over the course of their relationship, and it's even less of a secret how dissatisfied U.S. customers have been with the telco giant. It's understandable that Apple wants to paint the iPhone in a favorable light, but I'm admittedly surprised that they seem to be going to bat for AT&T at the same time. Sure AT&T is their business partner, but from my point of view this smells a lot like telling your family that your less-than-presentable date for Thanksgiving has 'a really great personality.'

Read on to see the ads in action.

Software. It doesn't matter if it's for a Mac or for an iPhone. There are certain qualities we just love, that make an app really stand out to us. As a rough approximation, we call it "Attention to Detail" but there's a lot more going on than just looking at tiny details. It's about understanding the user, what he or she wants from the app and needs it to do and how the realities of being humans with weak eyes, large fingers, and bad memory affect the way software gets designed. I asked my TUAW colleagues to share their thoughts on what makes a good app.

Brett Terpstra loves apps that are designed with a unique look but that use familiar controls. As a design philosophy, his ideal applications are both easy to use and fun to look at. Delicious, if you will. Cookie-cutter app elements may be great for prototyping an application's infrastructure but to him an app that really stands out has a unique visual voice.

He really loves Tweetie 2's ability to refresh your Twitter stream by scrolling to the top (with a tap on the title bar, of course), then pulling down and letting go. It's non-standard, but so intuitive that it should be. That's the kind of attention to detail that makes him feel warm inside.

For me, it's all about putting yourself into the mindset of the user. Were features put in place because they need to be there or because the developer thought it would be cool? Is the developer really understanding how real people might use the app? Take the iPhone. Is there a switch that lets you disable autorotation when you're using a game while lying on a couch or in bed? Because that's how real users use real games. And if the developer hasn't thought about details like this, they haven't hit that design sweet spot of matching real world needs against programming limitations.

Chris Rawson loves well-designed icons. They should give you some indication of what the app does, so you can launch it with barely a glance. Want to use multi-touch controls? Make sure those controls are intuitive and that they provide an innovative use of the technology. In his opinion, Convertbot is a great example.

Remembering already-set preferences is another hobbyhorse. Take iPhone apps that connect with the Mac over Wi-Fi for example. A brain-dead simple initial setup should be followed by only needing to push a single button (if that) to connect on all subsequent connections. And as for a finishing touch, he feels that well-polished graphics shouldn't look like something squeezed out over a single afternoon by someone with no artistic skill whatsoever.

Well designed, easy to follow instructions are key for David Winograd. In the best of all possible worlds those instructions should even include user interaction, whether via Q&A or by modeling, to make sure the key points get through to the user. In his opinion, Irene's Spirit has the best tutorial he's ever seen in an iPhone app. If the app were as good as the tutorial, the world would probably implode.

These are just a few key points from our team. Add yours to the comments below. What are the key elements that make an application, whether for Mac or iPhone or any other platform, shine for you?

All new Macs come with great bundled software. Between the iLife suite, Safari, iTunes, and TextEdit, plus the ability to access and use cloud applications for free, almost all of the most basic modern computing needs get met for most users.

That said, having used four different Macs over the past seven years, there are several applications that don't come with OS X that I find myself immediately loading onto a new Mac. Most of these are big-name apps that you've probably already heard of, but it's still pretty amazing how much extra functionality you can eke out of a Mac with only ten additional programs, and all of them (save the last one) are free.

Whether you're buying a new Mac for a relative this holiday season or getting a new one for yourself, these are ten applications you should download as soon as that shiny new machine loads the desktop for the first time.

It should be pretty obvious by now that smoking cigarettes is bad for your health. What's not as obvious is that it might be bad for your Mac, too. According to The Consumerist, two different people got turned down for AppleCare maintenance because their Macs were used in a house with a smoker. Both people appealed their cases all the way up to Steve Jobs, and both of them lost.

I've opened up a few computers that spent time in a house full of heavy smokers, and the insides weren't pretty. There was this disgusting brown resin built up all over everything, and it pretty much smelled like an ashtray stuffed full of 5-year-old cigarette butts. Though it's probably a stretch to call this "a biohazard" like in one of the cases The Consumerist cites, AppleCare agreements are worded loosely enough in their limitations of coverage that Apple seems perfectly within its rights to deny coverage in these two cases:

The Plan does not cover:

Damage to the Covered Equipment caused by accident, abuse, neglect, misuse (including faulty installation, repair, or maintenance by anyone other than Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider), unauthorized modification, extreme environment (including extreme temperature or humidity), extreme physical or electrical stress or interference, fluctuation or surges of electrical power, lightning, static electricity, fire, acts of God or other external causes.

It's that "other external causes" clause that's the catch-all, although you could probably argue that an atmosphere filled with smoke counts as an "extreme environment" as well.

Bottom line: if you have to smoke, you might want to step away from the computer first. With the investment that your Mac represents sitting there on the desk, why take the risk of messing it up in an easily preventable way?

While Bill Gates looked on, Microsoft shareholders asked CEO Steve Ballmer about Apple at their annual meeting this morning. Steve's CEO-speak responses illustrate the larger problem.

Portfolio reports that one investor asked about the company's reputation with young customers:

"I'm just wondering why your marketing group can't do something to try to rein in this next generation, because you've got a real bad image out there."

He also said that Apple's ads make Microsoft look like "a buffoon." That's when the CEO-speak began.

"There's certainly always opportunities for improvement," Ballmer said. "[There is] ... a group of people with whom our market share is less."

When you hear "opportunity for improvement," you're screwed. Euphemistic language clouds meaning and hides the truth. Think "economic downturn" and "previously enjoyed" instead of "depression" and "used." Or "opportunity for improvement" instead of "problem."

Remember the Windows Mojave ads, in which producers tricked customers into thinking Vista was an unreleased version of Windows, only to then throw open the curtain and essentially say, "See? It's really Vista! You DO like it! There's nothing wrong here!"

Instead of telling people what they like, sanitizing language, insisting that the only reason the iPhone has 75,000 apps available is to make it usable on the Internet and denying your kids iPods, just say, "Our reputation with young people is poor and here's what we'll do about it." That's when you'll get something done.

[Via MacDailyNews]

Every time I walk through Warehouse Stationery (New Zealand's equivalent to Office Depot) or Dick Smith's Electronics (pretty much Best Buy), I'm struck by how probably half the products in each store are pretty much useless to me since I've got an iPhone.

Thanks to the apps that come pre-packaged with the iPhone and the more than 100,000 third-party offerings now available in the iTunes Store, the iPhone has gained functionality that might have seemed hard to fathom under three years ago when Steve Jobs first announced the device.

"A widescreen iPod with touch controls... a revolutionary mobile phone... a breakthrough internet communications device... these are not three separate devices. This is one device." So Steve Jobs told us all back at Macworld Expo 2007. But since then, the iPhone has grown to be much more than just those three concepts.

What follows is a sort of anti-buyer's guide, a list of products and devices that you may never need or even want to buy again (or receive as a gift) if you have an iPhone. Some of these are certainly open for debate, but more than a few of them are products that, for all intents and purposes, are completely unnecessary if you have an iPhone. (Items in bold also apply to the iPod touch).

This sounds an awful lot like sour grapes to me: Ray Ozzie, Microsoft's chief software engineer, told a Professional Developers' Conference earlier this week that it wasn't the apps that would make or break the smartphone platforms. Of course, that's what most press and blog outlets seem to be focusing on (maybe because we all already know what the hardware is like -- apps change every day if not every minute, and the hardware only changes occasionally), but Ozzie says customers won't buy a phone for the apps. The biggest apps, he says, will eventually be available on every platform. To put it in as few words as possible, you'll be able to tweet from everything in the future.

And he's got part of a good point there: it's true, the major functionality of "killer apps" will be available across platforms. But Ozzie forgets (or is just ignoring) that that's already the case on desktops. While yes, you could claim that porting to the various smartphones is easier than porting to the various PC platforms, that doesn't avoid the fact that I can tweet, IM, email, browse, edit photos and movies, and do whatever else I want on both platforms as well. And for some reason (ahem, the hardware and the way both software and hardware are designed), I'd rather do them on the Mac. People love their iPhones not just for the apps but for the way it fits in their hand, and how just plain slick it is.

That's not to say that the smartphone platform war is over -- no way, it's only beginning, and we consumers will take innovative ideas wherever we can get them. But Ozzie saying the apps don't count (and echoing his fellow Microsofters in trying to separate Apple from their software strategy) seems to mean that even he thinks he's already lost that race -- they certainly do play a large part in which platform consumers eventually choose.

Well, most of us here at TUAW are pretty sure this is a fake. A compelling fake, mind you, but an utter fabrication. Why?

First reason -- Apple almost never discounts their products, other than selling refurbished equipment on the cheap. That's part of the reason that the company is so successful and has the highest margins in the personal electronics and computing world. Discounts of "up to 25% on all Macs" are an Apple fanboy's most exciting dream (next to the iTablet, of course), but we doubt if the Cupertino Kids would discount anything more than 5%.

Reason two -- Apple Stores are, for the most part, hugely popular anyway. Apple doesn't need to drag in customers on Black Friday by enticing them with wicked discounts. Let's face it, most of the Apple Stores are going to be packed on November 27th, so why would Apple want to create traffic jams and general hysteria by doing something like this? Hell, most of the Apple retail employees would probably quit during Black Friday, leaving the company in the lurch for the rest of the holiday season.

Number three -- Historical precedence shows that Apple usually provides discounts on Black Friday, but not as big as BGR is indicating. In 2006, Apple provided free shipping to shoppers at the online store. Last year, Best Buy discounted up to US$150 on Macs and Apple matched that, but there was no steenkin' 25% discount.

And finally, reason number four -- Apple's probably not going to send out anything with that much blank space at the top of it. They're too picky about design. They don't want someone to have to scroll down through an email to read the discounts, even if there is an Apple logo floating around at the top of the email.

How sure are we that this isn't going to happen? Well, if it actually happens the way Boy Genius Report says it will, I'll wear a Boy Genius Report baseball cap (provided by BGR, of course) for four hours at Macworld Expo 2010 and give you guys some free advertising. TUAW readers -- what do you think about the discounts? Are they going to happen or not?

It doesn't happen so much anymore, but not too long ago you'd hear about a new offering arriving in the App Store that would stir up a little controversy (the NetShare tethering app springs to mind). They'd enjoy some fanfare and a ton of purchases for a few days before being summarily removed, never to return and often without a thorough explanation from Apple. A relatively small number of users would retain possession of the app and would take a bit of pride in knowing that they were in the right place at just the right time to snag a copy of the app before it was yanked.

When I got the email from our very own Mike Rose regarding the release of GV Mobile, I was pretty excited. I'd been wanting to more fully adopt the Google Voice service, but had wanted a more iPhone-ish experience in doing so and GV Mobile seemed to have just what I was jonesing for. I paid the three bucks right then and, like The Giving Tree, was happy.

My adoption plan for Google Voice didn't pan out quite like I'd hoped for a while after that. I'd use it occasionally, but I had trouble moving it from the number I gave to sales people to the number I gave to my mother-in-law. But, despite the absence of the app in the App Store, I still had a perfectly working copy of it on my iPhone, ready when I was - or so I thought.

A couple of weeks ago, I had decided that it was time to make Google Voice a more central part of my communication workflow. Having not launched GV Mobile in a while, I fired it up to reacquaint myself with the interface, capabilities, etc. Trouble is, I couldn't authenticate with Google. I triple-checked my credentials but the app would just throw an error on launch and that was that. A couple of people on Twitter had mentioned having the same issue and a quick Google search informed me that, sure enough, the app no longer worked. Apparently, Google had modified the Voice API such that authentication now worked differently than it did when GV Mobile was written. Because the app no longer had Apple's seal of approval, I had little recourse because there obviously weren't going to be any updates to the app anytime soon.

Which raised the broader question - how heavily should we rely on "orphaned" apps? If they're self-contained (which is to say, they don't rely on any web sites or services to function properly), it probably isn't a big deal, but if you're a heavy Google Voice user and GV Mobile is how you got your work done, is it really a good idea to hang your hopes on an app that will likely never see any type of upgrade or bugfix release?

I can confidently say that this little hiccup has seriously cramped my plans for more completely adopting Google Voice. Is the same true for you? Have you experienced this type of dilemma with any other now-missing App Store purchases? Tell us about it in the comments!

Apple naysayers are a dime a dozen these days. I keep a few in my garage just so I can laugh at them when I wave my iPhone in their general direction and they all cry in unison, "The Zune phone is so totally going to be an iPhone killer. You know, if and when it comes out. Just wait and see."

Rarely do Apple naysayers come with more unintentional hilarity than Joe Wilcox from Betanews, who, alone among reporters everywhere, uncovered a media conspiracy on a scale not seen in recent memory. Namely, contrary to what literally everyone else has reported, Apple was in fact NOT more profitable with the iPhone compared to all of Nokia's cellphone business during the recent financial quarter.

John Gruber from Daring Fireball saw Joe's post, and with his response laid the smackdown on Joe's analysis.

Gruber's post boils down to castigating Wilcox for ignoring Apple's statement of non-GAAP earnings. Basically, Apple's subscription-based accounting for the iPhone spreads its revenues out over several quarters, which it expresses in GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) earnings. These are the earnings Wilcox looked at and said, "Wait a minute! Apple didn't make that much money at all! Murder most foul!" If you want a real idea of what Apple actually made with the iPhone over the quarter, you have to look at the non-GAAP earnings. This is something I figured out back when I edited earnings press releases for PR Newswire, and something anyone who reports on financial matters really ought to double-check before protesting to one and all that something foul is afoot.

Wilcox updated his post after Gruber's response, but his rationale is almost as funny as his initial post:

I chose to use the GAAP figures because a) Again, that's what Apple is supposed to report; b) It made for a simpler analysis; c) Apple recognizes previously deferred revenue with the quarterly results; d) According to Apple SEC filings, deferred revenue is for more than just iPhone and Apple TV. The last two points are paramount.
In other words, a) It's the SEC's fault, not mine; b) like Gruber said, I didn't bother reading past the first paragraph of the press release; c) I also didn't bother parsing through the reams of financial tables that come with every quarterly financial press release; d) Gruber is wrong and Apple TV is totally selling like hotcakes.

I showed Wilcox's post to the Apple naysayers I keep chained up in my garage, and they just kind of turned away scratching their heads awkwardly. I don't think that's a good sign for the supposed "misreporting" of Apple's iPhone profits that Wilcox thinks he's uncovered.

Dear Auntie Barrister TUAW,

I've been following your coverage of the Psystar case and I'm a little confused by the discussion on your last post. I've always thought the original case to be one of fact and an appellate case one of law. This, to me, would mean that in the appellate process they would not argue the case again at all. It would all be based on if the legal decision in the original case was rendered improperly.

So all the sturm and drang would be gone, No?

With love & kisses,

David

Read on for Barrister TUAW, esq's response

Sonos, best known for wireless music systems that link to your iTunes library and internet services like Pandora, Rhapsody and Napster, is offering a one piece, 5 speaker system that can be placed in any room. It's called the Zone Player S5 and it's US $399 direct from Sonos or dealers around the country.

Sonos shipped me a review system to try for 30 days, and I thought the sound was great. I already had a mutli-room Sonos system so adding the new portable player was just a matter of plugging it into AC power and pressing two buttons on the S5.

If you don't already have a Sonos system, you have to plug your unit into a router to connect to your music library and the internet. If that doesn't work in your home layout, you can buy what Sonos calls a Zone Bridge (US $99) that plugs into your router and lets the S5 make a wireless connection. Once that basic pairing is made, you can add as many other Sonos music systems as you like, all connecting over a wireless mesh network.

The system sounds quite good, given the limits of the small desktop-friendly size (8.5 x 14.4 x 4.8 inches). There are 5 speakers, two tweeters, two 3" mid-range drivers, and one 3.5" woofer all driven by individual amplifiers. The woofer is a ducted port design and the rear port serves double duty as a carrying handle.

Yesterday, Judge William Alsup, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, dealt Psystar a crushing blow in its ongoing litigation with Apple over whether or not Psystar could market and sell non-Apple computers running modified copies of Apple's operating system. If you're not familiar with the circus case, I refer you to, well...grab a coffee and click here. The two companies, embroiled in litigation since early last year, recently completed pre-trial discovery and each filed cross motions for summary judgment.

Judge Alsup put the ultimate hurt on Psystar when it granted Apple's motion for summary judgment and denied Psystar's motion for the same. In a sweeping order (courtesy Groklaw), the court agreed with Apple's take on the case and dismissed all of Psystar's defenses, both on the merits and for having waived and failed to properly plead.

The end result was a dramatic and startling court order in an ongoing series of dramatic legal squabbles between the two companies. And at least one of Psystar's attorneys saw this coming. The litigation doesn't end here; various issues still remain for trial such as breach of contract and trademark infringement, but Psystar has been gutted. The court is clearly unsympathetic to Psystar's core position and while damages on the copyright issues falling in Apple's favor in the order have not been ruled upon, it would probably behoove Psystar to start looking under the couch cushions for spare change.

A hearing is scheduled for December 14 on the remaining issues and for damages.

Read on for a more detailed analysis of the court's order....