My Completely Unsubstantiated Theory on the Verizon iPad

Yesterday, the biggest news story in the Apple blogosphere was the somewhat quizzical announcement that the iPad would soon be available from Verizon. It is an interesting announcement for a few reasons. First, it's not a Verizon iPad per say, but rather the standard wifi-enabled iPad, bundled with a discounted Verizon mifi personal wifi plan.

Why would Verizon start selling a quasi-carrier iPad? Why not wait for a cell version that would work directly with Verizon's network? My unsubstantiated theory: Apple is allowing Verizon to carry the iPad to make up for an unannounced delay in bringing the iPhone to Verizon. Many analysts has pegged the Verizon iPhone to a January announcement/availability, but then we heard it might be March until the Verizon iPhone is available.

To keep Verizon excited about the iPhone, perhaps Apple offered up the iPad early allowing them to meet a portion of internal revenue goals that may have been based on the assumption of January phone availability.

Of course there's always the possibility Apple is simply looking to move the iPad into as many channels as possible before other tablets have a chance to take hold, but that's not much fun at all, is it?

What do you make of the "Verizon" iPad?

Want to go to WWDC 2010? You Might Want To Clear These Dates

Kudos to MacNN for a little bit of technology gumshoe-ing to discover what looks likely to be the dates for WWDC 2010. You see, Apple hasn't announced the dates for 2010's developer conference yet, but June/July is a safe bet, in general. However, some investigating reveals an events labelled simply as "Corporate event" is scheduled for June 28- July 2. "Corporate event" has been used in the past to block the WWDC dates on the Moscone Center calendar until Apple announces the event.

Of particular interest, if this conference followed the patterns of previous ones, the keynote could occur on June 29th, As MacNN points out, this is exactly three years to the day of the original iPhone release. Just a fun date to celebrate, or an indicator of the expiration of AT&T's exclusivity on the iPhone? Keep an eye on those T-Mobile/Verizon/Sprint execs' calendars!

Boot Camp Shows Apple's iPhone Defense is Bunk

While you were out enjoying the weekend (hopefully), we were here digesting Apple and AT&T's response to the FCC's query regarding the "rejection" of the Google Voice app.

If you haven't heard, Apple clarifies, saying the app hasn't been rejected, but rather:

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.

Apple goes on to make more valid points, concerning the security of the transfer of the iPhone's contacts to/through Google. To be sure though, what you see above is their biggest concern with the App. The problem is, it just doesn't make any sense, especially when you consider one of Apple's other products.

Perhaps you're familiar with Boot Cam: Apple's utility allowing you to boot your mac into Windows if you install a copy on your Mac. The biggest concern with Google Voice is the manner in which it duplicates the functionality of the OS/apps Apple has placed on the phone, and yet Apple freely, and helpfully, includes the ability to completely duplicate the entire functionality of the OS on their computers.

Something just doesn't add up. Apple doesn't block Firefox from the Mac, because as much as they might want Safari to be the biggest browser, they know how foolish such a move would be. Why then would they reject an app for the iPhone that duplicates phone functions? Apple and AT&T both say AT&T has/had no say in this app rejection/further study. There's really no other rational reason for Apple to decline the app. If Apple truly believes they have created a superior dialing app/contact app, etc, then they shouldn't be bothered by an app that duplicates those functions. Let the consumer decide which is truly the better implementation.

And let's get away from this idea that the iPhone requires a special walled garden because it is a phone. The iPhone is not a phone, it's a lightweight netbook with 3G access. In the future this is how we will see every smartphone.

When you categorize it as a computer, this behavior can't be justified. Surely Apple wouldn't think that all the software for a computer should be approved by, and purchased through the maker of that computer exclusively. Then again, maybe they do...

AT&T Aims to Clear Things Up...

Many of us are not thrilled with AT&T as of late, but we have to give them credit for posting this video to address some questions that are still popping up regarding iPhone eligibility, tethering, MMS, etc:

I'd like some wi-fi with my chai chai

Just over a year ago (and I'm talking JUST) Starbucks and AT&T announced their partnership to bring ATT WiFi to all Starbucks locations.  This roll out was going to take some time so now that a year has past I decided it would be time to put their partnership to the test at my local Starbucks.

I'd like to be able to say that no Starbucks employees were hurt during the creation of this post, but unfortunately a very nice young lady spilled my green tea (I typically get coffee but I'm feeling under the weather so I thought green tea was more appropriate) on her hand . . . OUCH.  She's now fine, but it wasn't pretty.

I digress . . . the first test of any Wi-Fi offering is signal strength.  If you can't get a signal nothing else matters.  We can check this off the list . . . full signal.

Next - Connectivity, or how easy it is to connect to the internet after acquiring a signal.  Upon opening your favorite web browser (mine is FireFox.  I'm rocking the new(ish) Beta 3.1 . . . it's a beta) you're immediately taken to the ATT splash page where you can create your account OR if you're really prepared you can log into your existing Starbucks account.  The process was seamless.

Two recommendations here:  1.  Get a Starbucks card even if you don't go to Starbucks regularly.  A once a month visit will keep your account in good standing and gives you two free hours of Wi-Fi a day.  2.  Setup your account prior to getting to Starbucks.  You'll then simply enter your username and password and then you're off.  My user name and password is...

Come on, you didn't really expect me to give it up did you?

Once connected I've found speed tests to be excellent.  My favorite website, thedigitallifestyle.tv loaded without pause, even the mogulus video player where we bring you TDL Live.  Now I must confess . . . I was the only person with a laptop open during this test.  I'm going to imagine performance might be impacted with more users on the network.  Luckily my Starbucks location only has about a dozen seats.

In summary I'd give the ATT Wi-Fi experience an A+.  It's far superior to the former T-Mobile hot spot partnership.

Have you been using ATT at Starbucks?  Let us know what you think in the comments now that a year has passed.