Doesn't make her points any less valid i.e. none of the external developers had access to the 2.1 SDK prior to the N1's release, that Google is unaccustomed to direct sales etc.

But that is the point.

You develop for iPhone OS, you are largely absolved of the burden of having to determine device configuration and specifications. You know the exact target; either an iPhone/iPhone 3G/iPod Touch (no camera or video recording ability) or an iPhone 3GS. Can all Nokia smartphones run the apps on ovi?

Your numbers are way off. Apple had cumulative sales of 50 million iPhone OS devices (iPhones in various versions and iPod Touch) a month or so ago. The general consensus is that about half are iPod Touches, so that leaves about 25 million, and not 10-15 million that you claim.

But handset sales are only one part of the equation. Apple is recognizing revenue through carrier deals and also through the App Store, and iTunes Music Store. Until now there is no credible competitor for the App Store in terms of sales volume, profit or developer mindshare.

In other words, they're being hypocritical. Or the author failed basic high school English composition.

"Open source is high quality code and benefits an open internet, but our lucrative search and ad products are closed, because opening them up would lower its quality." But isn't that the point of "open source" in the first place?

I fail to see why a free software developer wouldn't be insulted by such a condescending position.

Oh, and Google panders to the Chinese censors too. What was that about an "open internet" again?

but Google was a major contributor in getting people comfortable with trading their data for "free" usage.

On the other hand, Apple customers generally do not mind paying for a perceived level of quality. Look at the Mac shareware market, although small in size there are companies that have existed and even prospered in this niche for years.

Essentially the people who actually buy iPhone apps do not mind paying that $1 or however much the developer wants for it, despite the fact that piracy is quite rampant by most measures.

This is not actually an insane proposition when you consider that the iPhone or iPod Touch is also a reasonable alternative to existing handheld game consoles like the DS, PSP etc, especially when you factor the price of the games.

You're replacing others' bias for one of your own. For every "fart app" that is not needed, how many "alternate dialers" or "profile managers" do you think the general public needs, or even cares about? This is classic developer featuritis. I don't need 50 ways to accomplish one thing. I only need one way to do it, but perform it reasonably well/fail gracefully.

While the marketing checklist is targeted at the iPhone (emphasis on running Flash, copy-paste which iPhone did not have until iPhone OS 3.0 etc), what is going to happen is that it is going to fragment the smartphone market even more.

We now have Maemo, Android, webOS, WinMo, Symbian, BlackBerry OS and iPhone OS as the major visible players, with Apple being the only one who has figured out how to incentivize their developers through the App Store, despite all its shortcomings. And Nokia has tried before too, with its N-gage system, and that didn't turn out too well either. So no, I don't think this handset is going to affect iPhone sales very much, if at all.

No significant increase in cylinder wall wear as compared to gasoline, assuming the metallurgy is up to it. Ethanol is slightly corrosive to aluminum alloy, which is what most engine cylinder heads and short blocks are made of these days. Cylinder walls are worn more rapidly due to friction from the piston and oil control rings at high RPMs. Depending on engine design over time the walls may even become significantly distorted and out-of-round (elliptical instead of circular).