If this codec materializes‚ even if proprietary‚ it will be “proof of concept” for the folks in Cupertino (who know a thing or two about codecs themselves).  This may be the solution to the bandwidth problem.

TMA just quoted himself in his own blog. And he’s referring to himself in the third person. Awesome.

So yesterday Hardmac, who TMA has never heard of before, threw out a rumor that Apple actually is working on their own codec based on the same wavelet compression Red uses.  Consistent with other Apple-backed codecs like AAC, it’s based on a royalty-free format, so let me be the first to speak on behalf of Cupertino to the freetard community: you’re welcome.

The hardware exists, the library exists, and the capacity soon will. The codec would be the last and arguably most important piece of the puzzle: a low bandwidth way to distribute HD content to Apple devices. Prepare yourselves for one of the biggest “one more things” Apple has ever unleashed.

So what could be the holdup? I mean, the app exists for the iPad; it’s essentially the same port. These announcements are usually followed by a product in relatively short order. What could be responsible for the delay?

Unlimited. Data.

You see, there’s a shitload of iPhone users out there (present company included) that didn’t think a $5/month savings on their AT&T bills was worth it – especially when 3G streaming media options were in still their infancy.

There are 14 million Netflix subscribers and over 35 million iPhone users. This is in no way scientific, but while monitoring my Netflix stream on my laptop, the smallest pull I could achieve was about 250kb/second. If this is even close to what an iPhone app would pull, AT&T’s network would be toast.

AT&T may be stonewalling until more people switch to capped plans or new users join (unlimited data is no longer an option for new accounts); it may have no intention of allowing the app it at all. I don’t believe the company is in any position to allow its network to be jammed up any further and that’s exactly what Netflix on the iPhone would do.

Contrast this with the relationships Google has with its Android partners. Google supplies the OS, HTC or Motorola provides the hardware and any one of a number of carriers provides the service. Its App Store is a loosely-managed free-for-all of copyright-challenging ringtones and mostly minor titles from fringe developers.

So what’s the worst that can happen? Motorola’s recently-released Droid X provides some insight. Gizmodo, who I generally despise precisely for its gratuitious fellating of Google, absolutely panned the device as a giant (5″ x 2.6″, 5 1/2 oz.), spec heavy, performance retarded amalgmation of Android 2.1 (even though the vastly superior 2.2 has been available on the Nexus One since mid-June), Motorola’s Blur social networking overlay and enough pre-installed crapware to make Sony blush.

On paper, the Droid X is one of the best Android phones ever made. But unlike Apple, who controls every facet of the product experience aside from the carrier, the up-and-coming OS’s implementation is a victim of several unleveraged relationships. God help me – I’m about to quote Gizmodo:

The software—a discordant melange of the not-so-fresh Android 2.1 and various bits of the Blur “social networking” interface from Motorola’s lower-end Android phones—is the shudder-inducing poster child for the horrors that can occur when most hardware companies try to make software. It’s ugly, scattershot, and confusing. It feels almost malicious.

If Google had manufacturer and carrier control, they wouldn’t have to deal with this shit, which is why I imagine they took a shot at selling the Nexus One themselves. This phone would ship with Android 2.2 and be stripped of both the crapware (which I suspect was not Google’s idea) and Motorola’s joke of an OS overlay. Instead, a device that’s a specification juggernaut is transformed into a Frankensteinian shitshow that makes everyone involved look stupid.

And that’s what I mean about 2 degrees of fragmentation – and if the carrier was actually responsible for any of the crapware pre-installed on the X, that would be 3. There’s the experience of the Android OS from Google, which has limited control over it (which is why there are 3 major versions of Android in circulation) and there’s the Blur overlay forced onto the device courtesy of Motorola (HTC also has the Sense overlay for many of its Android devices, but it’s not nearly as obtrusive or shitastic).

So when people ask their friends about “an Android phone”, they might get the enthusiastic answer version from a geek running Froyo on a Nexus One or the serious buyer’s remorse answer from someone who was marketed a superior device that’s hamstrung by an old OS and an aneurism-inducing faux UI provided by their meddling manufacturer.  And despite what Google execs would have you believe, fragmentation is not a fairy tale. It pisses consumers off and makes people wipe their asses with your brand. Then again, as long as people are granting Google the right to exploit their search habits and identity, I don’t think they care how many different versions of their derivative OS exist – as long as all of them keep pumping the ducats into Google’s coffers.

2. …that’s all I got.

No smart person can argue against “paying” for a free app through advertising – even for the worst quality app. I agree with people having to pay for an app with either with their wallet or with their attention, but not both.

Although it’s popular to characterize the app market as “a race to the bottom”, the App Store is still a free market. Pricing decisions, in the end, are made by the developers themselves. If a shop chooses volume over per unit revenues, that’s on them, just like in any other free market.  If the majority of developers were losing money in the App Store, there wouldn’t be 170K apps there. Apps that aren’t making money are either poor in quality or are not priced in a way that allows them to recoup the investment in them. Neither of these things are the consumers’ or the market’s fault. Any perceived “downward price pressure” present in the App Store economy does not justify iAds.

People thinking that Apple themselves will be adding prohibitive criteria of “too much advertising” as part of the app approval process are deluded, especially with the slew of new variables for notification Apple introduced as part of 4.0′s multitasking feature. It’s the market’s job to reward the $4.99 app developer who tastefully integrates advertising and punish $4.99 app developer who slathers ads all over the app.

My point is that there’s already a revenue model in place for paid apps: it’s based solely on the quality of the app plotted against its price. When Steve said “mobile ads suck”, my thought response was “isn’t that why you developed the alternative revenue model of paying for an app?”.

I think that’s what Steve meant when he said “It’s all about helping our developers make money through advertising so they can keep their free apps free.” If that’s the extent of iAd implementation, there is nothing but win. I personally didn’t get the impression from the presentation yesterday that iAds were limited to free apps.

If developers of paid apps use iAds, it drops a layer into the user experience that benefits only one party in the developer-consumer relationship. I have yet to see a model of advertising overlaid onto an already-purchased product that adds any value for the user; the very best models are successful if they don’t piss them off. If iAd implementation is not restricted to free apps, I don’t see anything in it for consumers, but a lot of opportunity to degrade the paid-app experience.

9 apps taking from 8 to 30 seconds to load.  And this:

What will it take to get you into this Kia? from Ars Technica on Vimeo.

Advertising.  What did you expect?  They are free‚ you know.

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.

Well then, so much for conspiracy theories.  This makes the non-approval both less seedy and more niggling:

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.

No AT&T SMS revenue protection scheme, just plain a old-fashioned fencepost pissing by the chief UI stormtrooper – or maybe a desire not to make Google products “just work” with the iPhone as well now that Google has thrown their hat into the OS ring.

Happy birthday‚ App Store.  Keep kickin’ app.