It supports public and private posting, including to private groups. New items will show up to your feed instantly. Twitter like @replies are supported.

There is a buzz recommending feature that learns what you are interested in and filters for that.

More, there are a suite of mobile, location based features, in luding google maps integration with what’s buzzing around you.

Not to gloat (ok, maybe a little bit) I called it on December 26. The iPad would be just a big iPhone. I even managed to post the name they would eventually use, the iPad.

Looking at the device now that it has been released, it does have some new native apps but for all purposes that count it’s a big screen iPhone. And that’s in the expensive version, it’s  just an iPod Touch in the cheaper version.

They brought it out. That’ s what matters.. it’s a real product. Hopefully there will be advances in the coming versions and I hope they do really well. As I said in my other post, I’m hoping this brings about a rash of competing devices that will eventually give me “The perfect hardware device”.

I’ve been looking for a neat Netflix streaming set top box for a bit. Been toying with the idea of building a boxee box for the living room. So far, I’m making due with hooking the laptop up to the TV. It’s a decent enough solution but I don’t have a way to get sound through the TV with it. The Roku has a wireless connection and HDMI to the TV. Pretty good.

So yes, I want a set top box, should this finally be it? I notice the default channel lineup on the Roku isn’t that great… basically just netflix and a few other not-so-great channels. But for a hundred bucks, can it really go wrong?

Anyone have any other great suggestions?

UPDATE: Of course, I posted this, then just saw the news that the XBMC has just released a new build…. looks tempting.

I’ve talked about what I want in The Perfect Hardware Device and, clearly, this is not exactly what I described. I want an open device. We don’t know much about this tablet, but if wild speculation can be trusted, this will be another walled garden…. if my supposition is correct, its just going to be a bigger iPhone. And while that would be cool, it’s not what the industry needs.

I believe this is a good step though. In the same way that the iPhone revolutionized the category of phones, the iTablet or iSlate or iPad or whatever they call it will revolutionize the tablet market. This will usher in plenty of new competitors that maybe will finally give me the device I want. Open, portable, always connected.

Indeed, if the Apple product does exist and if it is successful, it could change the way we use computers. That would be a great thing, even if we don’t all end up with the Apple device, the second and third movers will have a good time of it.

Hmm… a Google tablet anyone?

The analogy is thus(here slightly modified): Google is building an infrastructure on the web that rivals the importance of the Roman highway system and, in this scenario, Google is the Roman empire.

Between ChromeOS and Android, with Google’s steadily growing suite of web-apps, Google is re-doing the idea from some years back that “the network is the platform”. In this case the network is the general web and, if Google has their way… they will be the platform. They are trying to re-invent the way people use computers. Gone is the paradigm of a PC running all the applications, replaced instead by the thin-client doing all the important work on the big servers(you know, like how it used to be before PCs). In this case, the thin-client is basically a web browser and the servers are web-apps.

Now,  this is all well and good on the Joe-Schmoe consumer level. I,  as an individual,  would and do frequently rely on Google to handle and store my data in exchange for scanning it and displaying a few ads.   Guess what, though? Me, as network administrator in an enterprise environment would, no way in HELL, trust my confidential company data on servers that are not under my control or, at least, guaranteed to be available by some major service level agreement contracts replete with disaster recovery, encryption and all that.

And that’s the downfall of this web-app only plan. Without the corporations buying in, it will never come to full fruition. After all, corporations are where the money is at. What I want to see is the world shift away from the Windows desktop. I want to see ChromeOS and other thin-clients succeed and succeed in a big way. Web based apps are awesome and their time is coming BUT for corporations to follow this model, the apps are going to have to come in-house in a BIG WAY. That means enterprise support.

As I see it, for the dream of a Windows-desktop-less world, enterprises are going to need a robust web platform that can be self-hosted or alternatively, securely hosted in and ASP SLA-bonded model. The suite of apps must include at minimum: email, calendar, docs and spreadsheets. They should come in a turnkey solution that encompasses security and access control. They should have easy portability to mobile devices and should be modularized to support integration of a wide variety of applications. Larger companies with dedicated IT resources should be able to self-host these and smaller shops can sign up on an ASP model.

There are already many enterprise-grade applications that are browser based. Kronos and Peoplesoft come to mind. There are many others that have browser interfaced reporting systems. And some of these even integrate with your Active Directory, Exchange and eachother. But this is far from what I’m envisioning. The goal from what I’m saying is to unite  these applications around a common enterprise login/credentialing  system such that a user can log in through his thin client browser and have the necessary accesses to any and all of his critical apps and data right through the browser. Additionally, features for document management, email, calendar and will all be tightly integrated in the way we see in the google apps suite.

Better yet, would be that these are open source applications that all revolve around this common system. This platform exists, at least, in one form that I know of… Zope.  There are probably plenty of others but in any case, there is much development to do before this will be full featured and totally enterprise ready. But at minimum a common platform exists. Let’s make others!!

I am calling for all forward thinking open-source devs to come out of the woodwork and support these type of projects. Linux on the desktop may never really take off as a full-blown replacement for the Windows OS on it’s own, but with a full suite of apps available online, the web could fully replace the Windows desktop. This would allow the general public to use linux based thin clients on the desktop and finally put the last nail in the Microsoft coffin.

We need a platform, we need the apps. We need a company that can provide enterprise support and sell the corporations on the platform. We need ASPs.

I’m willing to put real work into help bringing this about. Please, hit me up in the comments and retweet if you agree.

The iPhone is great.  I carry mine with me wherever I go. It’s got the durability and ever connectedness that I need in a portable laptop (really, that’s what it is… I almost never actually talk on the phone) and does ALMOST everything I would want it to do. Yet, the iPhone disappoints because it exists in Apple’s walled garden. There are apps for almost anything you can imagine but they are encumbered by Apple’s draconian controls of the app store. There doesn’t exist a vibrant community of free software development on the iPhone as we need to see. Furthermore, why do we need apps for everything? The reason is the same controls that Apple has put in place. Apple has disallowed Flash on their platform. Flash would be the killer app on the iPhone, but you won’t see that any time soon. Apple won’t allow just any old website to now run rich client apps on their phone. Hell will freeze before we see Flash on the iPhone. There are big name developers leaving the platform for good reason. It’s a great piece of technology and it has pushed the envelope, there are even rumors of a tablet in Apple’s future, but the writing is on the wall… unless there are some drastic policy shifts the iPhone is a dead platform. Android and ChromeOS are about to eat Apple’s lunch.

Android is going to change the mobile landscape. Apple had the first mover advantage with their groundbreaking mobile device, but it won’t hold a shadow compared to what is coming. The perfect hardware device, as I envision it, is now possible. It  just needs someone to make it. And I’m sure someone WILL make it, because if I want it… so do 60 million other consumers. Here is my shot at making the perfect device, and here’s hoping I’m describing is what finally comes out of the G-phone rumor.

Form factor will be like the Archos Tablet. I’m sorry that that Archos couldn’t get the formula right…. their device has a lot going for it (including now, a limited Android) but their life-cycle and support sucks. My perfect device will not be tied to a carrier. It will be cheap enough to allow mass adoption, but I’m willing to pay a fair price for the hardware. The standard 3G, WiFi, bluetooth complement will be there. As will all the same sensors/camera/GPS like the iPhone. It will run Android. And after that, it will do NOTHING. It will get out of the way.

The ultimate device will be completely hackable. It will allow anyone to write apps for it. But that won’t be a big deal because apps will mostly go away. Why? The web will be the apps. Google has the right idea here. You can see it in the ChromeOS implementation. The web is the platform. It makes even more sense on mobile devices, especially this tablet I’m dreaming up. With full Flash support, and a handful of native apps, the world is in your pocket. You have access to the whole world of rich client applications, sandboxed in a safe browser session. You can have all your data available wherever you are. And it won’t just be the basic suite of Google apps either, huge swaths of the net will optimize for mobile in a way that we haven’t seen before. The web and mobile will merge in a symphony of yummy goodness. It’s too great to imagine.

I will buy this device when it comes out. My wallet is on the table. Please, someone develop this.

Anyway, I think others would benefit from my so-far pretty short list and by giving it out I invite people to suggest themselves or others so as to grow the list. All you have to do to follow any or all of these cool people is to click this link here: Orlando-Tech List, select which you want, then surrender your twitter details so that the service can add them.

If you want on the list or know of others who should be on it, let me know with an @reply or DM to @mlutter on Twitter. Likewise, if you want off the list, @reply or DM me.

PS: there’s a cool little icon that will do the same thing as the html link…

I had picked up a copy of the (so far) awesome book Agile Web Development with Rails, Third Edition. I have worked my way through the first 50 pages and have managed, with slightly more difficulty than I had invisioned, to get the Hello World program running. Read along for more.

So the first chapter is some fluff talking about the Model-View-Controller architecture and the Don’t Repeat Yourself philosophy. Of the very few things I have read about Rails lately, these are always talked about. The author is better than most, so it was good to get a coherent rehash. I skipped the acknowledgments part.

By chapter two we’re into the good stuff. We hear about what the MVC architecture really is, in the nitty-gritty. We hear about Active Record and how it is the ORM layer supplied with Rails and how it makes database queries a thing of the past.

In chapter three we learn what I really wanted to know: how to get started. Now, I understand there are probably a wide variety of ways to do things, but the author suggested a certain way and I followed it with great luck. Basically, the trick (working in a Windows environment) was to install InstantRails. I got the download from http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=904. Basically, you are going to unzip this to a clean folder (with no spaces in the path) and run everything from the self contained environment.

Finally, in chapter 4 I was able to get the server running, my application created and my Browser saying “Hello Rails!”.

Very Exciting stuff. All in all, I am very pleased so far. I look forward to learning more.

So I’m looking to update my hard tech skills. I was really into ASP in it’s prime, I’ve been into PHP and ASP.Net alternately over the years. I have drifted away from hardcore web tech since I’ve been employed in IT and I want to get back to it. I’m thinking that Ruby is the current next-big-thing.

The truth is, I know nothing about Ruby. It’s going to be a from new learning process. With that I’m going to dive into it and hope to blog about it all along the way. Check back frequently for my progress.

This, hopefully, bodes well for future acceptance of the app. It was widely thought that the app was declined because of the competition it would pose to AT&T’s core business. From what they say in their statement, apparently, they don’t care. Likely a bunch of BS, but now we should get to hold them to it…

Let’s get that app rolled out already!!!

UPDATE: The complete document is now out:
ATT Response to FCC iPhone Letter 082109 as Filed

Also, google statement is out:
Google Response to FCC

and finally, Apple’s:

Today Apple filed with the FCC the following answers to their questions.

We are pleased to respond to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s inquiry dated July 31, 2009, requesting information regarding Apple’s App Store and its application approval process. In order to give the Bureau some context for our responses, we begin with some background information about the iPhone and the App Store.

Apple’s goal is to provide our customers with the best possible user experience. We have been able to do this by designing the hardware and software in our products to work together seamlessly. The iPhone is a great example of this. It has established a new standard for what a mobile device can be—an integrated device with a phone, a full web browser, HTML email, an iPod, and more, all delivered with Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch user interface.

Apple then introduced something altogether new—the App Store—to give consumers additional functionality and benefits from the iPhone’s revolutionary technology. The App Store has been more successful than anyone could have ever imagined. Today, just over a year since opening, the App Store offers over 65,000 iPhone applications, and customers have downloaded over 1.5 billion applications.

The App Store provides a frictionless distribution network that levels the playing field for individual and large developers of mobile applications. We provide every developer with the same software that we use to create our own iPhone applications. The App Store offers an innovative business model that allows developers to set their own price and keep more (far more in most cases) of the revenue than traditional business models. In little more than a year, we have raised the bar for consumers’ rich mobile experience beyond what we or anyone else ever imagined in both scale and quality. Apple’s innovation has also fostered competition as other companies (e.g., Nokia, Microsoft, RIM, Palm and Verizon) seek to develop their own mobile platforms and launch their own application stores.

Apple works with network providers around the world so that iPhone users have access to a cellular network. In the United States, we struck a groundbreaking deal with AT&T in 2006 that gives Apple the freedom to decide which software to make available for the iPhone. This was an industry first.

We created an approval process that reviews every application submitted to Apple for the App Store in order to protect consumer privacy, safeguard children from inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Some types of content such as pornography are rejected outright from the App Store, while others such as graphic combat scenes in action games may be approved but with an appropriate age rating. Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications. When there is an issue, we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.

We’re covering new ground and doing things that had never been done before. Many of the issues we face are difficult and new, and while we may make occasional mistakes, we try to learn from them and continually improve.

In response to your specific questions, we would like to offer the following:

Question 1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.

Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

The following applications also fall into this category.

* Name: GVDialer / GVDialer Lite
Developer: MobileMax
info@mobile-mx.com
* Name: VoiceCentral
Developer: Riverturn, Inc.
4819 Emperor Blvd., Suite 400
Durham, NC 27703
* Name: GV Mobile / GV Mobile Free
Developer: Sean Kovacs
sean@seankovacs.com

We are continuing to study the Google Voice application and its potential impact on the iPhone user experience. Google is of course free to provide Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Apple’s Safari browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its “Google-branded” user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let consumers make their choices.

Question 2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?
Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.

Question 3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?

Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.

There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T’s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T’s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.

Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?

Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&T’s 3G network.

Question 5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?

In a little more than a year, the App Store has grown to become the world’s largest wireless applications store, with over 65,000 applications. We’ve rejected applications for a variety of reasons. Most rejections are based on the application containing quality issues or software bugs, while other rejections involve protecting consumer privacy, safeguarding children from inappropriate content, and avoiding applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Given the volume and variety of technical issues, most of the review process is consumed with quality issues and software bugs, and providing feedback to developers so they can fix applications. Applications that are fixed and resubmitted are approved.

The following is a list of representative applications that have been rejected as originally submitted and their current status:

* Twittelator, by Stone Design Corp., was initially rejected because it crashed during loading, but the developer subsequently fixed the application and it has been approved;
* iLoveWiFi!, by iCloseBy LLC, was rejected because it used undocumented application protocols (it has not been resubmitted as of the date of this letter);
* SlingPlayer Mobile, by Sling Media, was initially rejected because redirecting a TV signal to an iPhone using AT&T’s cellular network is prohibited by AT&T’s customer Terms of Service, but the developer subsequently fixed the application to use WiFi only and it has been approved; and
* Lingerie Fantasy Video (Lite), by On The Go Girls, LLC, was initially rejected because it displayed nudity and explicit sexual content, but the developer subsequently fixed the application and it has been approved with the use of a 17+ age rating.

Apple provides explicit language in its agreement with iPhone developers regarding prohibited categories of applications, for example:

* “Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in Apple’s reasonable judgment may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory; and
* Applications must not contain any malware, malicious or harmful code, program, or other internal component (e.g. computer viruses, trojan horses, ‘backdoors’) which could damage, destroy, or adversely affect other software, firmware, hardware, data, systems, services, or networks.”

And we also provide a reference library that can be accessed by members of the iPhone Developer Program that lists helpful information such as Best Practices and How To Get Started.

Question 6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

As discussed in the response to Question 5, Apple provides guidelines to developers in our developer agreement as well as on its web site regarding prohibited categories of applications. These materials also contain numerous other provisions regarding technical and legal requirements that applications must comply with, and Apple uses these standards in considering whether or not to approve applications.

Apple developed a comprehensive review process that looks at every iPhone application that is submitted to Apple. Applications and marketing text are submitted through a web interface. Submitted applications undergo a rigorous review process that tests for vulnerabilities such as software bugs, instability on the iPhone platform, and the use of unauthorized protocols. Applications are also reviewed to try to prevent privacy issues, safeguard children from exposure to inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly. Apple also established an App Store executive review board that determines procedures and sets policy for the review process, as well as reviews applications that are escalated to the board because they raise new or complex issues. The review board meets weekly and is comprised of senior management with responsibilities for the App Store. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of being submitted.

If we find that an application has a problem, for example, a software bug that crashes the application, we send the developer a note describing the reason why the application will not be approved as submitted. In many cases we are able to provide specific guidance about how the developer can fix the application. We also let them know they can contact the app review team or technical support, or they can write to us for further guidance.

Apple generally spends most of the review period making sure that the applications function properly, and working with developers to fix quality issues and software bugs in applications. We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates.