Wrong? That the iPhone would be a toy without third party software? That iTunes would be the center of it all?

The iPhone payed for my house. How did you capitalize on your zealotry, fanboy?

They can make an easier case for locking down the devices and selling you the things you could otherwise get much cheaper or free via third party applications if they could actually produce those applications themselves.

But because mobile development is hard, and cross-platform development harder, and few developers with this expertise are willing to work for greedy phone companies, they find the prospect of doing it themselves too expensive.

They should just accept their roll as a provider of commodity bandwidth and let the developers and device manufacturers give people what they want.

The Nokia N800 has something like that, and it works surprisingly well. The neat part is how it automatically brings it up when you fat-finger the screen over an input box, distinguishing that from stylus clicks.

Still prefer a tactile keyboard, though.

ZOMG! That's almost twice the price of a Sony-branded 8MG memory unit for the PS2! No one is going to buy that! It's crazy!

"Stop whining, ditch MS and just buy a PS3 and Apple. Problem solved!"

Trade one corporation who wants to bleed money from you for two that are more arrogant? Why?

Your MacBook is getting owned, Cancel or Allow?

It's called shadenfreude; you brought it on yourselves.

I'm amused by how impressed people are over this. It just proves that the iPhone itself isn't really all that novel.

The significant innovations are the multitouch system, the random access to voicemail (since it requires modifications to Cingular's back-end), and porting OS X to the device. The rest of it is just applications programming and UI-skinning, no different than every other phone out there.

"43% of all mobile phone users in western Europe does not know how to put a phone number in the mobile phone's memory!!!!"

And you think a phone without a keyboard will somehow make this easier?

The Pilot beat the Newton because its text entry was easier and more accurate. The Treo and the BlackBerry created the smartphone market because keyboards are even easier than that.

If $12 a month can give you access to every song ever made, why do they care that people are copying music? It is obvious that the value of any song is less than the bandwidth used to transmit it.

That cheap subscription model is one of two things: a bait-and-switch to get you dependent on DRM before they jack the price or turn the screws, or the very least they otherwise make per month on typical purchaser of music.

Let's be generous and assume the latter. What does it do for the artist now that all royalties are derived from the same pool, and they've got to trust the distributer to determine their fair cut? How should that even work? The value of the artist is no longer how many units they sell, but how many subscribers they entice to join or remain in the system. And what happens when there are competing networks with mutually exclusive songs? How can this be stable or good for anyone but record executives?

Yes. Because with DRM, subscription means I watch it once. Hey, that's great. No different than what I do at Blockbuster.

But purchase means I might watch it twice before the device to which it is node-locked is wiped, broken, upgraded, replaced, had its keys revoked, or thrown away because it is ten years obsolete. Plus I can't lend or resell the rights to the bits I supposedly purchased.

The purchase model for DRM is absurd. Without an open platform for interoperability and a neutral standards body to design it, it is better to have no DRM at all, even if that means a complete lack of downloadable digital content.

The Nokia N800 is 800x480 with a 4" diagonal. These higher density LCDs are becoming more common.

The iPhone is 320x480, the same as all non-square Palm devices. So I guess that is, uh, er, pwnage.