I've gotten a bad rap over the years as a "gadget guy". Every time something new is released, people have come to expect me to have it. I'm definitely a gadget guy, but I think people often miss why I buy gadgets. Unlike, say, Alex, you'll rarely, if not never, see me buy something new just because it's new. I don't own an iPhone. I'm definitely an early adopter, but only when the new technology enables me to do something I couldn't do before (or makes what I could do before drastically easier).

For example, let's walk through my history with music players.

I first had a Walkman back in the day. It was great, because I could make my own mixes and run with it. (My favorite version was the yellow Sony Sport one. It even had a sweet strap for running. Kick ass).

Then I got a DiscMan. This enabled me to skip to the next song, something that was more tedious with cassettes. It still sucked because I had to carry a whole ton of CDs based on what I was doing and what I wanted to hear. (And let's be honest, you couldn't really run with it except on a treadmill). My experience with the DiscMan changed a lot when I get a CD burner, though. The CDs still only held 74 minutes and I had to carry a few of them, but at least they held 74 minutes of what I wanted to hear. It was less time consuming to make mixes than it was with the Walkman, the sound quality was better, and the experience was a big step forward.

In 2000, I got a Philips Expanium, one of the first CD units that played MP3s. This was great because I really only had to carry a single CD - instead of 74 minutes, it held nearly 700 minutes. The interface wasn't great in terms of selecting music, but it was a drastic improvement. The sound quality wasn’t quite as good as a CD, but as we know now we can’t really tell the difference – and skipping wasn’t a big deal because the buffer held just about a full song. I love this thing – it was a big step forward to this point in my music consumption.

Unfortunately, I lost my Expanium was lost in the evacuation after 9/11, so it was time to shop for something new. The iPod was still Mac-only at this point, so I decided to go with an Archos Jukebox Recorder. All of a sudden I had 6 GB of music with me everywhere. It was a bit bulky and the interface wasn't great. It had a physical hard drive (judging from the container, a full size one!), and you couldn't really run with it for an extended period of time. Another issue was that the entire interface was driven from the file system. You could browse by folder, and you could create physical playlists, but you couldn’t browse by artist, genre, or create smart playlists.

For the same reason, upgrading to the iPod 15GB (third generation) was a big deal. Unlike the Archos, the iPod had a metadata-driven view of my music. All of a sudden, I had 15GB with me but I could actually sort through it - by artist, genre, etc - which I couldn't do before. Plus, it was significantly smaller, which means I was able to carry that music with me more easily in my pocket, so I listened to more music.

When the iPod Nano was first released, I bought a 4GB version. I lost 9 GB of music in the process, but it meant that I quite literally have music with me everywhere I go. I absolutely loved the nano. The size is obviously amazing, the interface is a full iPod interface, and because it was flash-based I can safely run with it without skipping or risking damage.

Still, 4GB was a bit tight - I listen to different things when I'm at the gym, programming, and just on the go - and I also got into podcasts. I found that 8GB was a good number for me, and so when the second generation Nano was released a year later I jumped on it. And yet, when I lost that 8GB Nano, I had no need to upgrade. I went back to to the 4Gb. Basically, all of my daily listening is done on my computer now (a luxury I didn't have at Goldman), so my iPod is just music for my workouts and podcasts - and 4Gb is fine. Since I don't intend on watching video, the 3G Nano brings very little to the table for me. The iPod Touch is sexy, but I don't need video, and it's more expensive and bigger. The iPod Classic has an amazing capacity, but I simply don't need 160GB with me.

And so an early adopter is still using a music player released in 2004, simply because these new products didn't transform my experience at all.

Fundamentally, this is the same reason I'm still using the T-Mobile Dash. It synchronizes completely (and wirelessly) with my Exchange Server, something the first iPhone didn't do. It is actually thinner than the iPhone. Plus, it has a full physical keyboard. And as Fraser and Jeff and others there at the end of the Firefox 3 launch party learned last week, it can beat the iPhone looking up addresses even when we give the iPhone a head start.

This isn't a new problem to most of us in the software industry. When Microsoft releases a new version of Office or Windows, they need to come up with things that will compel users to upgrade. Sometimes, a flash new look or a slick new gadget helps make the decision easier, but to be really important the new technology has to enable a use case that wasn't available previously. So, while I’m a happy Vista user and addicted to a few key features, I can understand why others are disappointed – it doesn’t really enable us to do more than we could under XP, and it doesn’t really make things that much easier for the “normal” user.

The big lesson in all of this is that technology matters when it really changes what we can do with it. For those of us building technology, it’s important to keep this in mind and not build technology for the sake of technology.

With its recent announcement to support ActiveSync on the iPhone, Apple is clearly going after the enterprise user.

The problem, as Colin puts it, is that the decisions that consumers make decisions on a radically different set of criteria than organizations. Lack of Exchange support was surely holding back enterprise adoption, so that move was both obvious and inevitable. The fact that they are also supporting remote wipe is a bigger deal than most might realize too - security is a major concern for large enterprises, and for a long time Blackberry was the de facto device in large part because of this. (Windows Mobiles devices weren't allowed at my last job until the Remote Wipe feature was enabled).

Fundamentally, I think we're moving to a model where enterprises are going to demand a certain baseline for devices to play in their garden. Features like over-the-air Exchange connectivity, remote wipe, and support for .NET, Java, and Flash are quickly becoming non-negotiable. It also makes sense given the sentiment I've seen in enterprises towards a "bring your own device" mentality. This approach makes sense for both the employees and the company - employees already don't want to carry multiple devices and can choose the ones they like, and the enterprises are spared a major expense by not having to purchase and maintain their own devices. But, to be a supported, a device needs to bring this baseline demanded by the enterprises. This is why it doesn't surprise me that Microsoft is licensing Flash Lite for Windows Mobile as well as developing Silverlight for these devices.

It's also why, regardless of Apple's distaste for Flash, I find the prospect of having Silverlight on the iPhone so intriguing.

To understand why I think this is a big deal, it's important to understand the dynamics of enterprise development. For all the bad things about internal development, the one real bright spot is that you're typically working in a closed, controlled environment and thus your innovation is not bound by a "lowest common denominator" approach. Flash is nearly universally available on the desktop, so it makes a lot of sense for Internet developers to choose that over Silverlight - but those numbers are wholly irrelevant to the enterprise developer. This is precisely the reason we were able to do AJAX back in 1999, even if it wasn't ready for an Internet deployment.

It shouldn't be surprising then that most enterprises don't actually do a lot of internal Flash development. The vast majority of enterprises are Windows-based so they don't do much COCOA development either. Especially in the financial world, there is much more .NET development being done than work in either of the aforementioned platforms. And while Silverlight is often positioned as "just a Flash competitor", it is important to remember that it also brings a full, extremely lightweight .NET runtime.

Apple also intends on controlling distribution of applications through the iTunes Store, something most enterprises are not going to be cool with. They could allow enteprises to run their own application server, but that would leak in, oh, about thirty seconds. Of course, it doesn't matter nearly as much if you're consuming a Silverlight or Flash application.

While the ActiveSync announcement was clearly a big first step in transforming the iPhone from a consumer product into an enterprise mainstay, I think the availability of Silverlight would be an equally important step.

It looks like T-Mobile dropped their data plan from $29.99/mo to $19.99/mo. I originally thought this was related to the new unlimited rate plans and losing the Starbucks account, but it was actually back in September (on my birthday no less). I must have missed it at the time, given that whole wedding thing.

And worse, it turns out you have to actually ask for the new rate. After reading Kevin's post, I logged in to My T-Mobile today to adjust my plan. To add insult to injury, check out the options I'm presented with.

For the past 5 months, I've been paying $10 more than I should have for this service. T-Mobile should have adjusted this for me automatically (as Kevin said, you can be sure they would if the price went up). At the very least, they could have told me about it via a pamphlet or during the time I spent talking to a T-Mobile representative as I was trying to get my phone unlocked for the honeymoon. They did neither, and were quite happy to let me pay $10 more a month unless and until I noticed.

This isn't necessarily surprising, but it is disappointing for a company that is supposedly big on customer service. (It certainly isn't their network service).

I was actually really excited about T-Mobile's new VOIP service, but being "taken advantage of" like this might make me think twice.

Customer service is the reason I am still paying over $50 a month for Verizon's unlimited home phone service, even though I would love to switch over to Time Warner's significantly cheaper VOIP plan. When I've had problems with my cable, I had to wait 3-4 days to get it fixed, and they even tried to charge me a service fee for something that was their problem. I've rarely had an issue with Verizon, but when I had trouble getting phone service in my apartment in Stuy Town, they came within a few hours (at night) and the technician called periodically the next day to keep me up to date with the status of my issue.

They could learn a lesson from Amazon, who realized that being obsessed with the customer "can be the best way to build a lasting business, even if it comes at the expense of short-term results."

So, right now, I think T-Mobile sucks. I am going to call on Monday and see if they will credit my account for what I've been overpaying. Ideally, if they were listening, I wouldn't have to call, but that's probably a bit much to ask. Hopefully they were at least listening when Jeff Jarvis told them to love the customer that hates them.

Verizon, a company traditionally known for being ultra-controlling with its network and devices on its network, is opening its network in 2008. As Om puts it, "given Verizon’s track record of tight-control of its network including the user interface, this is a huge announcement: akin to Mikhail Gorbachev responding to President Ronald Reagen’s call to bring down the walls."

In practical terms, there aren't a lot of CDMA phones out there compared to GSM, so it's not (initially) that big of a deal. For example, you still won't be able to get an iPhone on Verizon anytime soon.

The really important line in the announcement, however, is that "any application the customer chooses will be allowed on these devices". It's about time. I wonder if Verizon will finally stop disabling the GPS and otherwise crippling their devices... If this is the case, I might actually be tempted to consider CDMA and a switch when my T-Mobile plan is up. 

Go to Germany and bring $1,500 with you (well, more if the dollar keeps slipping and you don't go soon).   T-Mobile will be selling an unlocked, contract-less iPhone as a result of a German court ruling.

T-Mobile said Wednesday that it will sell the iPhone in Germany without a contract, complying with a court injunction against it. In addition, it will unlock any phone bought since November 19 -- the date of the ruling -- at no charge, so that the device can be used with other carriers. However, the company has asked the courts to clarify the injunction so it may change its offer to consumers based upon that.

Consumers will gain the option to purchase the device without the two year contract for €999, or about $1,478 USD. In all cases, contract or not, T-Mobile will unlock any iPhone purchased after the ruling. The process is apparently different in Germany than it is here in the US. American consumers may purchase the iPhone sans contract for a flat price of $399, whereas in Germany, consumers are apparently forced to purchase the contract first and the phone second.

Even with a 2 year contract, the phone is still more expensive than in the U.S. at €399 (or about $590). Does Apple have revenue-sharing deals with the European exclusive carriers as well? It's still shocking to me that Apple wants to tie to a singular carrier in each market, but I guess if you look at the price with and without carrier, maybe we can see why: that contract is really valuable, and we now have concrete figures.

That said, something doesn't sit right for me here. The 8GB iPod Touch retails for $399.00 with no contract and still WiFi, touch screen and so on. I'm assuming that the only thing it doesn't have from a hardware perspective is the GSM radio, and I can't imagine that that isn't being addressed by the $100 premium. You also expect that they're still getting decent margins on the iPod Touch, so clearly the iPhone hardware itself is still making Apple money.

Now, if the contract is so valuable, why bother selling the iPod Touch? If you think people wouldn't bother activating the phone capabilities, well, those people are probably now buying an iPod Touch. I know a number of people - myself included - who would consider buying the iPod Touch but are holding off in case they want to get an iPhone later (i.e., due to existing contracts or whatever). If Apple is really getting such a great margin for the contracts, why preclude those people who buy an iPod Touch from ever activating the device?

I wonder if a better strategy would be to eliminate the iPod Touch entirely and integrate that into the iPhone line. Offer two models (8GB and 16GB) each with the phone hardware in there. If you activate, you get phone capabilities, if you don't you get the base functionality in the iPod Touch today.

I think this is especially necessary in the gift scenario. iPods are traditionally big gifts in the holiday times, but they are stand-alone products. By tying the use of the iPod to the phone contract, there's a barrier to giving the iPhone as a gift.

Thoughts?

Fred is unlocking his iPhone. I'm waiting anxiously to see how this turns out. If all goes well, I may have to consider picking one up myself especially in light of the price drop. The EDGE-only doesn't bother me too much since I'm on the T-Mobile network which doesn't have HSDPA anyway.

Maybe Alex will sell me his old one when the 2G inevitably comes out with HSDPA and 16GB...

Scoble mentions 3 new iPhone apps today from Newsgator, Bloglines, and Google. It's interesting that companies keep saying they are doing "iPhone development", when really these are nothing more than sites skinned to look more natural on the iPhone. The iPhone is the only mobile phone that gets special versions made for it, which is especially curious to me considering one of its big selling points is the full-featured Safari and a better browsing experience in general.

My initial take is that these companies are just trying to ride the coattails of the amazing iPhone marketing. Mashable says "NewsGator hasn’t been so hyped in recent months, and all I ever hear about is Google Reader."

Is it just an easy press release when you have nothing else interesting to announce? Or do these special versions really make a difference?  (I don't have an iPhone... so isn't an entirely rhetorical question).

I recently wrote a piece for the TechDirt Insight Community about the impact of the iPhone and how the other carriers and device manufacturers can respond to the iPhone. I've come to realize that the iPhone has indeed changed the game, but maybe not for the obvious reasons.  Yes, the iPhone is "making it okay to experiment with new ideas, and throw out previously taboo notions." It will probably lead to innovation with touch interfaces, and will probably shake up the way we purchase and activate phones. Ultimately, though, those aren't why the iPhone is important.

The iPhone is important because it's the first smartphone that appeal to the general public.

For example, Tara had heard all the hype but had no interest in the iPhone, nor does she have any interest in a BlackBerry or the Samsung Blackjack. Then she saw this David Pogue video, to which she responded "whoa - that thing is sweet! I had no idea it was that cool".

According to Charlie's informal survey of 16 random non-techie friends, absolutely none said they would be likely to purchase the phone in the next three months. It's easy for non-techies to dismiss the hype around the iPhone because it sounds like something they don't need. No matter how cool we techies think it is, it's just another smartphone and no smartphone ever appealed to them before. However, as these non-techies see the phone in person or videos online, I think they might come to the realization that the iPhone is, indeed, for them - and, perhaps ironically, not for the techies like me or the early adopters like Alex. Alex says the iPhone is too simplistic, but maybe that's the point.

The iPhone is the smartphone for the average user. As much as Scoble loves his Nokia N95, he came to the same conclusion as well. This is the first phone that "the other 98%" would even consider paying $300 for, let alone $600.

Now, let's revisit what this means for the rest of the market.

If the mobile phone is truly to be more than a commodity, other manufacturers will have to reduce the number of models and focus more on building individual, strong brands based around a handful of SKUs.  This is something that Apple has traditionally done well - offering very few models and in most cases the choice was between one or two capacities and perhaps a few different colors. The sheer volume of devices that many other manufacturers put out can be create the - perception that any one device is not that important, and thus dilutes the strength of the device brand.

In other words, I think you're going to start to see smartphones from other manufacturers that concentrate less on "features" and more on experience and simplifying the way people interact with their phones.

Alex has an iPhone (two, actually) and posted his first impressions (but not until he shared his activation woes).

In talking to Alex and reading other reviews, the general consensus is that the iPhone is very good, but underneath it all it's still the same old carrier BS. I did have a chance to play with it briefly this morning and it's undoubtedly a very, very slick device (in both form factor and UI experience). We may have been wrong about condemning the choice of glass. It looks like it's quite durable, and actually didn't smudge too much in the few minutes I used it. It may sound scary, but hey, the only thing that scratches glass is diamonds and other glass right?

I am still probably not going to be getting one, the convergence with my Dash to Exchange is simply awesome, and I can still get work e-mail through Good Technologies. Aside from that, the other thing that really stood out for me was the recessed headphone jack. One of my biggest complaints with Windows Mobile devices has always been the use of the smaller 2.5mm ("non-standard") jack. What's the point of using a "standard" 3.5mm jack if most headphones, including those expensive Shure and Ultimate Ears that you bought for your iPod, don't fit? And who wants an ugly adapter sticking out of this beautiful phone?

Anyone have one? What do you think?

Om Malik says that, in a sense, the iPhone has already changed the mobile business because they're "making it okay to experiment with new ideas, and throw out previously taboo notions." Now Tero Ojanpera, the Nokia CTO, believes that "optical sensors and touch will be the next big things".

Personally, I think there's going to have to be a lot of innovation before I think that can happen - not just in the quality of recognition and somehow providing tactile feedback, but in the material used for the screen surface. iPods are notorious for being easily scratched, which has apparently prompted a switch to glass.

Apple also announced that the entire top surface of iPhone, including its stunning 3.5-inch display, has been upgraded from plastic to optical-quality glass to achieve a superior level of scratch resistance and optical clarity.

Judi Sohn doesn't think this is such a great idea.

Glass? Glass?!?! On a phone?!?!? How is this a good thing? Raise you hand if you have never accidentally dropped your phone, even from a small distance. If your hand is not in the air, you’re either lying or you only use your phone occasionally…in which case you have no business buying a $500 phone to begin with. The rest of us have our moments where despite our most careful efforts, these things slide out of our hands as we’re trying to take a call while doing 300 other things (driving not being one of them, of course).

Aside from that, one of my biggest pet peeves is smudging. Forget tactile feedback and so on - this is the single greatest advantage of having a separate display device and keyboard. No one wants to use a stylus that can easily be lost, and if you're touching the display this is always going to be an issue.

Touch will not be the next big thing in mobile until someone solves this problem.