Gruber: Apple Never Said There Would Be Synching

John Gruber at DaringFireball.net points out that Apple never said there would be synching between Leopard's notes and the iPhone. Before it was removed, the text on Apple's website said that iPhone users would be able to "...access [notes] from your iPhone." As Gruber points out, you can view notes as email via IMAP.

"I think Apple changed the text of this web page because people like Chartier were confused about what they were referring to, not because they’ve removed a feature they previously promised."

I disagree with Gruber there, as I think Apple removed it because synching wasn't ready, and they will eventually add note synching to the iPhone. There is solid evidence the synching feature is coming. A warning pops up Leopard's notes when you try to change fonts. It warns the note will be changed into rich text format and that "rich text notes may not be editable on iPhone and other devices."

9 to 5 Mac Blasts Analysts

A relative newcomer to the Apple blogosphere, 9 to 5 Mac is quickly becoming one of the definitive Apple intel sites. Today, 9 to 5 Mac displayed a bit of hubris by rightfully ripping into Apple analysts, then offering themselves as a more accurate source of information. The thing is, 9 to 5 is completely right. I have to admit, I had come to trust analyst Shaw Wu. But 9 to 5 shows us some startling facts: Wu's information is correct only about 15% of the time. I'm not sure what made me trust him in the first place. Maybe it was because his information tended to be positive, and I wanted to hear positive info. People tend to believe what they want to hear.

Apple's Version of Google Gears for the iPhone?

Good call from John Gruber in pointing out Ars Technica's "Worst iPhone Source of the Month." I have to admit, I ate up the original story with a spoon and side of blueberries, but in retrospect, it seems ridiculous. The leap in logic from allowing an offline Safari app to native app is just too easy.

iPhone Terminology: Goodbye "iPhone Optimized"

Because of the iPod Touch, we can no longer say a website is iPhone optimized because the iPhone no longer has a monopoly on touch-screen, Safari web browsing. Bloggers are starting to use the ugly phrase mobileSafari interface. Hopefully, something better comes along.

The grammar of tech changes as quickly as its hardware and software elements. The phrases iPhone optimized or iPhone friendly were correct usage for a whole two months. Now they will slowly dribble out of existence, surviving only in outdated websites and Google caches.

Roughly Drafted on iPhone Sales

A great read from RoughlyDrafted.com concerning the latest noise/link baiting concerning whether 1 million iPhones sold is good or bad for Apple's projected 10 million by 2008. From the article:

"Frommer's idea ignores that same reality by imagining that iPhone sales will schlep along at a linear pace. Had Frommer tried to calculate an "annual run rate" for the iPod based on a portion of third quarter sales at any point over the last half decade, he would never have been close to accurate. That’s because Apple’s iPod sales roughly triple every winter quarter.

1. In 2002, it sold nearly as many iPods in its winter quarter as it did the first three quarters combined: 219,000
   

2. In 2003, it actually sold more iPods in its winter quarter than in the first three combined: 733,000
   

3. In 2004, it again sold more iPods in its winter quarter than in the first three: 4,580,000
   

4. In 2005, it sold more than 4 million units every quarter, but still sold nearly three times as many in the winter: 14,480,000.
   

5. In 2006, it sold more than 8 million units every quarter, and then sold over 21 million in the winter quarter.
   

6. In 2007, it has maintained quarterly sales between 10.5 and 9.8 million per quarter."

John Gruber on the iPhone's Pricing

If you haven't added Daring Fireball to your RSS reader yet, you need to. There's an excellent post (accessible in the site's archives) on the iPhone's pricing.

"There are millions of people who have already spent $399–599 on an iPod within the last few years. With the exception of storage capacity, the iPhone does everything these iPods do, and, well, a whole lot fucking more. Why wouldn’t these same people think about spending $499 or more on an iPhone?"

Whenever someone asks me how I like my iPhone, I rave about it, but I always end by saying, "But it's too expensive to be really popular." I still think I'm right; yes, this current version of the iPhone will sell millions (does that make it popular?), just like the expensive models of the iPod have sold millions. But also like the less expensive iPods, the iPhone won't sell tens of millions until there's a Nano equivalent.