I recently wrote John Gruber an email with regards to his note about Michael Robertson’s claims (Robertson is former CEO of MP3.com). In general, Robertson has made the argument that the cell phone is the iPod killer. But really, he’s got it completely backward. What I said to Mr. Gruber was as follows:

Unless Robertson is not including the iPod Touch, then he has his assessment quite backwards. iPods are actually the iPhone killer. Everything from television to the landline network is gradually being sucked into TCP/IP. I don’t think anyone would be surprised by that statement. Data is data and data only needs one network, and that one’s already up and running on wifi and soon, wimax.

As someone who owns an iPod Touch with a microphone and that lives amongst (a University Campus and my house) ubiquitous wi-fi networks, I didn’t even see the point of getting a cell phone attached to my iPod. There’s nothing special about all the cellular networks with the exception of the fact that they are not as open as the Internet.

What other technological channel has managed to attach itself to the Internet without being entirely absorbed by it? Cellular networks and cable TV are being assimilated. Cell phones aren’t Internet devices–the iPod is. In fact, that’s got me wondering about Jobs’ inspiration for naming the iPod versus the iPhone. Did he realize the iPhone was just a hybrid while understanding that the iPod (a much more generic and flexible idea) was still the end-all-be-all?

Seriously though, is the Reality Distortion Field^TM hitting me this far out from California? There is only one well-known device on the market that is prepared for the transition from cellular network to wifi transmitted IP. The cost of maintaining cellular towers that can utilize 3G seems much higher than wimax. I really think the iPhone is a transition device, a hybrid. Still though, Apple has its bets covered on this one.

Ok, the Apple keynote is coming up and I’ve been checking out the usual rumor mills among other highly regarded Apple sites and I’ve come away with the feeling that everyone is missing something. Normally, I wouldn’t use my blog for speculation, but I can’t shake it—it seems so obvious to me! There are rumors aplenty that Apple is going to release an ultraportable notebook (or subnotebook) and some even think that it’s a bad idea. But a subnotebook would be so… well, Sony, not Apple. It wouldn’t ceate a new product category the way that Apple likes to do (see Newton, iMac, iPod, iPhone). Moreover, Steve Jobs has said that he was more than just intrigued with the iPhone’s touchscreen capabilities—that he could see the technology influencing the entire line of Apple products. And I think it’s precisely the touchscreen technology’s influence that all the subnotebook rumors are missing—namely because they all have keyboards! ((Well, not everyone, sort of.)) Imagine instead, a big Nintendo DS—a subnotebook with two screens. These screens operate in tandem so that documents and windows can be spread across them, or one or the other can become an input device (a keyboard being just one of those). That’s my prediction, at any rate. And at least part of the reason that I feel like it’s not too wild is because Apple’s been after this device for a while. It might’ve been a Sculley-era Apple vision, but Jobs is the only who could make it a reality. Regardless, the keynote will still be valuable.

You know, it’s just rude to have a comments link on your article but close the comments (or render it inoperable) and not state that somewhere on the page. I clicked on the stupid link several times before giving up when nothing happened. Whatever, the web is a rude place. I’m used to it. The point is Ross Rubin wrote (in aforementioned rude article) that he believes Apple needs to include Flash support as part of the iPhone. He makes a good argument, and it looks like Apple is going to do it; but I think there are still two two key issues that the no-flash complaints are missing: Can Apple do it without Adobe and the fact that the Flash plugin is crap. ((Not Flash itself. I am a HUGE fan of Flash the media. I’m talking about the program that renders Flash in the browser. It blows.)) Read more…