Rogers offers up $20 iPad data sharing deal... and then retracts it.

Apple and Rogers today seemed to announce an iPad data sharing plan, which was advertised on Apple.ca. That plan would have allowed iPad users to share their existing Rogers 3G smartphone data plans with their iPads for an add-on fee of $20. Although that added $20 was not a terribly good deal, at least it would avoid having to get an additional 5 GB $35 plan just for the iPad.

Oddly enough, that offer was quickly retracted, and there now only remain a 250 MB $15 plan and the 5 GB $35 plan.

As expected, the folks over at Howard Forums are rather disgusted with Rogers right now. I'm sure everyone is now looking to see what Bell and Telus will offer.

Rogers seems have to have an unusual knack for screwing up Apple 3G launches.

In the meantime, 3G data tethering continues to be a free add-on for those of us with the GB+ iPhone plans, so that's a pretty strong disincentive to get an iPad. The iPad cannot tether at any price since the machine is simply incapable of that functionality, but a laptop can "share" that data usage at no extra charge.

Clash of the iPad

This is a month old now, but I'm only getting around to posting it now. It's just an amusing chance placement by the Toronto Star of two pictures, for reports on the iPad launch and the Clash of the Titans movie.

27" iMac Core i7 as a monitor

US FTC & DOJ considering antitrust inquiry into Apple

The New York Post and Reuters are reporting that the US Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice are considering a formal inquiry into Apple's new very restrictive iPhone 4.0 developer requirements, which are essentially designed to exclude third party development platforms such as Adobe's Flash.

The New York Post first reported regulators' interest in Apple's policy, which essentially requires people who write apps to choose between writing them only for Apple or for Apple's rivals.

The agencies are expected within days to make a decision on which would handle the investigation, the Post reported.

"What they're (Apple) doing is clearly anticompetitive ... They want one superhighway and they're the tollkeeper on that superhighway," said David Balto, a former FTC policy director.

This will prove interesting if the FTC/DOJ does move forward.

[Update 2010-05-03]

The Wall Street Journal is now also reporting the interest from the FTC/DOJ.

Also mentioned in the WSJ article is the FTC's interest in Apple's new ad service for iPhone OS 4.0, called iAd.

Apple's new language forbidding apps from transmitting analytical data could prevent ad networks from being able to effectively target ads, potentially giving Apple's new iAd mobile-advertising service an edge, executives at ad networks say.

Steve weighs in new developer requirements

Voicing his concerns, Greg Slepak at Tao Effect wrote to Steve Jobs about the harsh new programming requirements for iPhone 4.0. Here is Steve's response:

We’ve been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.

The second statement does have merit from the business perspective, as for example, allowance of third party cross-platform development tools can slow down widespread adoption of new features introduced by Apple. Third party tools may not be as ready to incorporate those new features as Apple would, especially if other targets cannot support them.

As for sub-standard apps, banning third party tools does little to address this issue. Many apps created with Apple's tools are absolutely terrible, but similarly bad apps in iPhone 4.0 will win a free pass simply because they were created with Apple's tools.

Apple slaps draconian iPhone 4.0 requirements on developers

Evidenced by the shock and dismay out there, Apple's new draconian new iPhone OS 4.0 programming requirement seems like a big blow to independent developers. I can't claim to be an educated coder or anything like that, but even as an outsider, this sends shivers down my spine.

IANAL, but I have to wonder if the regulators could consider this anti-competitive.

P.S. Until today I had no interest whatsoever in Android. Now I think I'll have to take a closer look at Google's baby to see what all the fuss is about.