It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Apple is doing something big with the iTouch lineup.  Seems like a pre-event price drop on all iTouch, Nano, and iPod products is telling us that something big is coming in that arena.

But does it mean that the new product is held up for some reason?  Or is it simply an attempt to compete with Microsofts new Zune (coming within the week) pricing which is lower than Apples.

Only time will tell, but we will be here to let you know what the results are as soon as they come out!

Here’s to hoping a tablet is coming!

iPod Touch:
– 8 GB now $199
– 16 GB now $249
– 32 GB now $299

– 64 GB now $399

iPod Nano:

– 8 GB now $149
– 16 GB now $179

iPod Classic:
– 160 GB now $229, down $20

Last week was a big week for Facebook users with iPhone handsets (or iPhone users with Facebook accounts, whichever works) as it brought the release of the much-talked about and much-awaited major update to the Facebook iPhone application. As promised by app developer Joe Hewitt, the latest version of the official iPhone client of Zuckerberg and company’s social networking and online marketing brainchild, Facebook 3.0, came packed with a slew of features that make this, hands down, the best version yet.

Yes, its true… the C64 emulator by Manomio has finally been approved by apple for your iPhone and iTouch.  I can’t even begin to tell you how much stuff i did with my c64 when i was a kid but you’d be surprised how much could be accomplished with just 64k of memory.

Arnold Kim reported yesterday on Touch Arcade, Apple appears to have requested the removal of the Commodore BASIC interpreter from the application which allows running arbitrary code.  I guess having an interpreted language inside an app is a big no no for Apple.

Its amazing that over 20 years ago, Commodore outsold the Apple II by leaps and bounds (maybe it was the price?  maybe the quality of the sid chip?).  Whatever it was, Commodore had over 12 million computers in households, and now in one move, its available to over 45 million iPhone users and countless iTouch users.

I wonder if the emulator will outsell the original?!

 Now that MMS is on the horizon, the only missing service promised is tethering.  Imagine hooking your computer into your iphone and getting on the ‘net.  How handy would that be?

 It was announced last November, and (based on what I’ve read) has been available on many other carriers in many other countries. Except here in the USA. 

 This past week alone, we’ve seen the following “bullet” points (if I may be so bold as to paraphrase many of the articles and blog posts of late)

• iPhones are the “Hummers” of smartphone data networks (Source: nytimes.com)

• iPhone surfing/data consuming has increased 10% this past month (Source: engadget.com)

• 3Gs users use up to 4 times more data than 3G users thanks to the increase in processor speeds

• AT&T can’t keep up with all the data/network demands of iPhones (part of the reason why AT&T is upgrading it’s networks) (Source: several places including engadget.com)

• AT&T is launching MMS in September—this will increase the amount of data used on their networks (Source: several places including 9to5mac.com)

 Taken all together, it sounds like tethering would just be like squeezing blood from a stone. Would other providers be able to support this? I’m not sure, but with the strain already on the system tethering would be a high price to pay.

 And while I’m speculating, let me also speculate that AT&T wouldn’t gain anything by offering tethering. How many people would join AT&T so they could use their computer anywhere? My guess is not many would join for that purpose; however once they started using it, I’m guessing they’d start to use it a lot. 

 Thus tethering would add to AT&T’s headaches and not give them much on the ‘upside’ . So while I’d like to see tethering supported, I think I’d rather have a stable data network and just type an email on my phone.

AT&T’s been complaining a lot about how much iPhone users download–gently pointing the finger to all us iPhone users as the reason for problems with their service. 

I (personally) have been scoffing at that idea; with increase in profits and AT&T’s supposed improvements to their network scheduled or  currently being rolled out, I would think it isn’t the amount of data we are pulling, but the provider that’s the cause.

But maybe I’m wrong.  I just read at engadget that the FCC is considering opening up more frequencies for use in the wireless space.

This could be a boon to all us unwired people out there…but will it be enough?  I remember when somebody first had a 1 Gig drive.  I said to them, "Wow…you’ll never fill that up"…and 6 months later they did.

Does opening up more frequencies solve the problem? Or just put a bandaid on it?  I’m not an engineer, but my understainding is that unless you can get more "data" moving faster on the same frequency, you’ll eventually run out of space again.  Perhaps it’s best to invest in new technologies that will allow us to use the frequencies we have (and will soon gain) in a way that we can expand on our growing data demands without running out of the spectrum.

All week long we’ve been hearin about AT&T and their troubles.  Comments ranging from the iPhone is the hummer of smart phones, to the statement that the iPhone users are bringing down AT&T’s network.

But today came the statement that AT&T is going to start supporting MMS on September 25.  How can that be?  Is AT&T able to support these new demands?  Or is AT&T caving into customers complaints without being able to support the network demands?

Eitherway I’m cautiously happy at this news.  We will finally get the features promised by Apple but will we be sorry when we have bad perfrmance?

As I was once told "becareful what you ask for. You just might get it"

The Vonage app was "approved" by Apple today, thereby joining Skype (and I’m sure several more lesser known apps that do VOIP service).  I’m pleasantly suprised by this–it seems to me that Vonage had a much easier time than Skype in getting approved. 

With a choice of VOIP services now available, I started to think about how relevant "voice service" to a cell phone?  While you might be tied to AT&T for service, if you can pick your  ‘voice provider’, does AT&T’s voice service still matter?  I (personally) don’t think so.

I think AT&T could have record profits by dropping it’s voice service.  Think about it: if AT&T dropped it’s voice service completely and only provided data service there would be savings on by reducing the amount of new equipment to buy, decreasing the amount of equipment to maintain, and just maintaining a homogenous network means less problems. 

But what about all the dropped calls? (Probably the biggest complaint you hear about AT&T)  I’m not saying it’s right, but AT&T could almost deflect that by pointing to the VOIP providers.  Just keep the data flowing and all will be better.

What about the money AT&T makes from voice service? Why they could make their own AT&T VOIP app, of course !

What do you think? Will cell providers become just data providers? Or will they always provide voice services as well?

It seems like there is more speculation about the agreement between AT&T and Apple.  Based on the myriad of posts, blogs and articles it seems like the discussion is heating up.

Based on what I’ve read, the only true winner of the arrangement is AT&T–they’ve increased their profits, increased their customer base, and have upgraded their networks (does upgrading count as a plus for them?)

Apple on the other hand could gain more market share, more iTunes dollars, and more overall profit if they could support multiple carriers at once.

The comments made by Gene Munster imply that the AT&T/Apple agreement will be in place until 2011 or 2012.  

There is speculation that the tablet will be able to use other providers–but that doesn’t help my dropped calls!

The concept that most drove the iPhone (and by extension the iPod Touch) above and beyond all smartphones or multimedia players was the ability to purchase and use apps within the device.  While cogitating on this as well as the hypothesized upgrades available in iTunes 9, a thought crossed my mind.

Why isn’t it possible to play iPhone/iPod Touch games on iTunes itself?  It is already possible to watch video and listen to music via iTunes (even using the iPhone or iPod Touch as a remote). Granted, the iPhone or iPod Touch supports multitouch while the Mac and Windows operating systems currently do not, but I’m sure Apple imagineers could figure out a way around that.  Perhaps they could have the user simulate multitouch using the keyboard and mouse?

If Mac could do that, they could have a software-based gaming console on every Mac or PC to which it is downloaded and the delivery system to go with it.  Imagine if the Wii was given away for free and charged only a fraction of the current price per game (because delivery charges would be practically nothing).  Apple could sell apps without needing to sell the hardware that is currently needed for the apps to run.  I think the average consumer would go for that.  Would Steve Jobs?  I don’t know.

Of course, at this stage they couldn’t call the program "iTunes" anymore.  That name was invented when the iPod only played music and iTunes was its jukebox repository.  iTunes has become much more since then.  Apple would likely change it to some imaginative, esoteric name like iDea ("idea", but with a capital "D").  What name would you call it?

 I read over a pcworld that apple sys the exploding iPhones over in Europe isn’t their problem.  Apple (according to the article) says that the exploding glass from the iPhone in all incidents is caused by user  error.

While it may be true that exploding devices may not be due a problem with Apple’s design;  it seems odd to me (personally) that they are trying to shift the blame before the investigation ends.

Are my suspicions warranted?