What Will This New Feature Look Like?

In this new implementation, users can't choose between the Lala or iLike widget. Instead, Google will randomly decide which widget a user sees. This gives Google the option to switch between services and to include other services in future as well.

Buy Songs from Rhapsody - See Lyrics from Gracenote

Underneath the music onebox results, Google will feature links to its other partners, like Rhapsody and iMeem, where users will be able to purchase MP3s.

Google's partnership with Gracenote also allows it to show lyrics in the search results now. As Marissa Mayer pointed out in today's announcement, finding lyrics is still very hard on Google. Now, users can type lyrics into the default search box and Google will return results from the music search feature, and users can play the song right on the search results page.

Big Winners: Lala and MySpace

The big winners here are obviously Lala and MySpace/iLike. For Lala, this has been an especially busy period. Just last week, Lala announced a partnership with Facebook. It now powers Facebook's music gifting service.

iLike has a traditional streaming model. The company streams some song full length and some as 30-second samples. Users can buy MP3s from iLike for between $0.99 and $1.29. MySpace bought iLike earlier this year, and the widget on the Google search results page will be MySpace-branded.

Lala's business model is more interesting. Users can stream every song on the service once for free. After that, customers can buy the right to stream it for $0.10 or buy the MP3 for $0.89. Users can also upload their own music library to Lala and then stream those songs freely over the Internet.

How important this move is for the two streaming music services becomes clear when we look at the current traffic data for music-related searches on Google.

Update: We just had a quick chat with Lala's CEO Geoff Ralston after the event. The Lala team is obviously very excited about the partnership with Google and as Ralston told us, the company worked with Google for quite a while to get this new feature up and running. According to Ralston, Lala's partners in the music industry were very supportive of the integration. We also asked him if he was worried that the new influx of traffic was going to bring Lala's servers down. Google, however, stress tested Lala's servers and couldn't bring the service down with up to 550 queries per second.

What Does Google's Current Music Traffic Look Like?

Hitwise's Heather Dougherty took a close look at Google's music traffic earlier today. According to Hitwise's data, about 6% of last month's top 1000 search terms on Google were music-related. In total, Google sent about 1.48% of its traffic to music sites. The majority of these searches (15.32%) lead to a Wikipedia site, but almost 10% currently go to YouTube, 5.7% to Yahoo Music and 3% to MySpace.  Now that users can listen to music right from the search results page, these services - including Google's own YouTube - will likely see a drop in music-related traffic over the next few weeks.

Eager North Americans have been waiting for the Spotify service to launch stateside; nevertheless, because the company looks to sign major label deals before its American release, there is no hard date for launch. According to paidContent, "Spotify hopes to launch in the U.S. in Q3 or Q4." Meanwhile, Florida-based Grooveshark just launched a premium service available to both US and international members, and an iPhone service has been submitted to the App store. While Grooveshark's current app does not allow for cached offline music, the company plans to incorporate this feature in an upcoming version. Not to be outdone, Rhapsody also submitted an iPhone app early this week. If Spotify launches in the US when Grooveshark's cached music app becomes available, it will be an interesting battle for streaming music supremacy.

Billboard.com currently attracts about 4 million unique visitors each month. Compare that to the conservative Quantcast estimates of MOG at 7.7 million monthly visitors and Imeem at a whopping 16 million monthly uniques. Although it is expected that Billboard will see a traffic spike due to its recent web redesign, it's doubtful that it will increase its numbers to rival those of today's top music communities. We need to remember that while Billboard is still a reputable music industry news source, it is completely irrelevant to cool hunters.

By the time a single reaches Billboard's charts and gets featured for streaming, Hype Machine and Imeem users are more than familiar with them. In fact, they've probably grown bored with the multiple remixes and have decided to form a backlash movement against them. Let's face it, Billboard, Spin and Rolling Stone magazine have become irrelevant to the younger generation of music fans. In fact, Forbes just published a story on how music network Pitchfork is replacing them. And you know if Forbes thinks Pitchfork is the next big thing, then the über hip have already left in droves.

One of Threadless' top selling shirts bares the slogan, "I listen to bands that don't even exist yet." If you're on the bleeding edge of music, you probably want to stick to your favorite music site rather than switching to the bubblegum selection of Billboard's mainstream offerings.

According to Forbes journalist, Javier Espinoza, "Another looming threat [to Spotify]: Microsoft is launching a very similar music streaming service later in July, a service that also allows users to download the music, something Spotify still won't allow members to do." Nevertheless, the question is, will Microsoft be able to provide cross-format support and separate itself from its lackluster music devices in order to build a site that consumers will enjoy? If it can't, Spotify will have nothing to worry about.

Besides, in late June, Spotify co-founder Daniel Ek made the following statement to the Register, " We're working on a one-click download solution with 7Digital, press buy, press OK and you buy a recording. My hope is to get it out in the next couple of months."

Demonstrated at Google's late May I/O conference, Spotify's Android already caches music for easy offline play. An iPhone app version is already reportedly in the works.

If you can play all of your favorite music from your cached play list, how important is it for the average user to have the access to the original file? Below is a look at the current Android app, let us know your listening habits in the comments below.

Trend: Illegal File Sharing Sites Go Legit

The interesting trend, here, though, is that a lot of companies and services that were previously known for being 'illegal' hubs for file sharing are now trying to go legit. Napster, the grandfather for Kazaa and most of its brethren, is now a respectable paid service, and the Pirate Bay may offer a legal version of its service soon.

As Eric Pfanner pointed out in the New York Times, we are now getting to the point where using legal services like Spotify or Lala are actually so much more convenient than illegally downloading music. Given this trend, it makes sense for centralized services like Kazaa to slowly drift to a legal model. At the same time, decentralized file sharing options like BitTorrent, which don't depend on a single company to work, will still continue to be popular. Chances are, though, that users will probably share less music through torrents over the next year or so, as more cheap and free options allow users to legally access music more conveniently.

2. Deezer: Deezer offers users free and legal streaming music while sharing advertising revenue with artists and rights owners. The site launched with a Sony BMG partnership and signed a Universal Music deal in 2008. Users can share their favorite music by connecting with friends within the social network, or embedding playlists in 3rd party sites.

3. Spotify: Heralded as one of the best music streaming experiences on the market, Spotify is only available in the UK, Sweden, Norway, Spain, France and Finland. TechDigest TV uploaded a fantastic looking preview of Spotify's much anticipated iPhone app.

4. Tunerec: Swedish company Tunerec allows users to create music libraries and playlists from recorded radio play. Because libraries are taken from recorded music, it takes a while to populate playlists; however, according to RWW's initial review by Frederic Lardinois, the service is worth the wait.

5. Last.FM: If you haven't heard of Last.FM, you've probably been living under a rock. The site offers users the ability to create radio stations and stream them complete with AudioScrobbler-powered recommendations.

6. Pandora: To the user, Pandora and Last.FM are similar recommendation-based radio services; however, where AudioScrobbler makes statistical inferences, Pandora's recommendations are determined by the Music Genome Project's 400 distinct musical characteristics.

7. Slacker: Slacker is another popular radio recommendation service. Users input tracks and receive recommendations. Slacker first launched with custom mobile hardware and has since expanded onto other mobile devices.

8. The Hype Machine: This is a fantastic service for those willing to leave music selection to the experts. Like other sites, this one allows listeners to search for music and stream playlists; however, the files on the site are actually streamed from the blogs of top labels, DJs, promoters and music start ups.

9. Blip.fm: Blip.fm is another site where music lovers can access millions of streaming songs. Members receive their own station and the ability to share station programming responsibilities with friends. The site also offers integration with blogs, Twitter, FriendFeed and Last.fm. The act of blipping refers to the act of linking to a song and attaching a 150 character comment to it.

10. MOG: MOG is a music blog network that encompasses more than 300 blog posts per week. The site offers an in-depth look at new artists and includes music recommendations, videos and streaming audio clips. A good place to start with this service is to play audio from it's Recently Popular Posts page.

11. Lala: Lala also offers users a playable web browser interface. The service contains 7 million free online songs and the ability to purchase additional web songs at 10 cents each or downloadable MP3's for 80 cents and up each.

12. Imeem: Imeem is considered "the new social mixtape". The streaming music site allows users to create playlists and share them across the web. RWW recently covered Imeem's iPhone and Android launch.

13. SoundCloud: SoundCloud also allows users to upload tracks and share them via the cloud. Listeners receive shared files via an email-style interface. From there, they can choose to either play the music from the site or download the tracks they've received from friends.

14. 8Tracks: This service lets users upload 8 tracks as a playlist and share the playlist with friends. This service is essentially what Muxtape used to be.

15. Muxtape: Muxtape has transformed from one of the early mixtape-style music sites (users uploaded and shared playlists) to a directory of bands. It remains a great place to discover indie bands.

16. Project Playlist: Project Playlist indexes music from across the web. Again, users create playlists and share links to music files with their friends. Reviewers see this as one of the best music search engines in existence.

17. Skreemr: Skreemr is also a search engine and music indexing site. It claims to offer users access to "6 million mp3 files from over 100,000 web sites".

18. Fizy: Similar to the now defunct Seeqpod, Fizy is an extremely bare bones approach to streaming music with a simple search bar. Like Seeqpod, the site offers speedy music video results and audio results, and unfortunately, legally questionable content. Perhaps the site's recent acquisition will change that.

On the Horizon: Microsoft is set to launch a streaming music site at the end of July. For more info on this project check out our coverage.

Upload with AIR - Play Over the Air

You upload your music with an Adobe AIR app which allows you to upload songs directly from your hard-drive, but also has a convenient option that lets you browse your iTunes library to pick songs you want to transfer to imeem. In our tests those uploads worked just as expected and went relatively fast. The sounds quality was also surprisingly good.

Similar to the iPhone apps from Pandora, Last.fm, and and Slacker Radio, you can also easily create custom radio stations, though the functions here feel a bit limited compared to the options that imeem competitors now offer.

Like its competitors, the app suffers from the fact that it can't play in the background on the iPhone. Sadly, imeem also doesn't remember where it left off after you exit the app.

Pricing

You can store up to 100 songs, 10 videos, and an unlimited amount of photos on imeem for free. For $30 a year, you can upload up to 1000 songs and 100 videos, and $100 a year buys you storage for 20,000 songs and 500 videos.

Alternatives

We are also big fans of Lala, which allows you to listen to all of your songs online without any restrictions. Sadly, though, Lala does not offer a mobile application.

If you want full access to the music on your desktop while on the go, Simplify Music 2.0 also does a great job at streaming your collection over WiFi, Edge, and 3G. One of the nice features of the Simplify Music app (iTunes link) is that it gives users easy access to lyrics and artist biographies. Imeem only provides access to artist biographies.

Verdict

Given the quality of the apps that imeem's competitors have released, this app still has a bit to go before it can fulfill all of its promises. However, if you are looking for a simple way to expand the capacity of your iPhone or Android phone then imeem might be worth a look, especially if you don't keep your music on a home server where you can easily access it with Simplify Media or Simplify Music.

Pandora: Humans Only

Pandora, one of the most popular music recommendation and discovery services on the Internet today, bases its recommendations on data from the Music Genome Project. The Music Genome Project assigns up to 400 attributes to every song. This, however, has to be done by trained musicians and the process can take up to half an hour per song. While the results of this method are often great, and we ourselves have often discovered interesting new music through Pandora, this approach simply doesn't scale very well and Pandora's library can often feel somewhat limited.

Mufin: Algorithms Only

Maybe the best known proponent of a music recommendations system that is purely based on algorithms is Mufin. Mufin's software analyzes the fundamental properties of a song and makes recommendations based solely on the musical similarity between songs.

While Mufin's approach generally works surprisingly well, the problem with this technique is that the system is simply oblivious to the cultural context of a song. Thanks to this approach, you might get to hear Christmas songs in February, for example, as the algorithms simply can't understand the cultural context of your music library.

At times, however, being agnostic to the cultural context of a song can also have its advantages, as Mufin's recommendations can often help you to rediscover music you had forgotten about. Mufin also works with any song, no matter whether it's from your own band, Kanye West, or an unsigned local band.

While Mufin's web service turned out to be a bit of a disappointment, we did like the company's iTunes plugin, which analyzes the songs in your library.

Lala: Explicit P2P Recommendations

Other services, like Lala, have decided to not feature any real recommendation technology at all. Instead, Lala purely relies on users following each other on the service and recommending new music to each other.

At least for Lala, this approach seems to work very well. When we talked to Lala's founder and CEO Bill Nguyen last week, he pointed out that 70% of all the music listened to on Lala was new music that was not already in a user's music locker, and that 18% of new music listened to on the service is bought and added to collections.

eMusic: Hybrid Approach

EMusic, the second largest online music store after iTunes, introduced a new recommendation system on its site late last year. This new system is based on technology from MediaUnbound, one of the larger providers of personalization and recommendation services. MediaUnbound, for example, provides the recommendations for MTV's Urge, Napster, and Brazil's Terra Sonora (eMusic, by the way, dropped Choicestream as its recommendation service in favor of MediaUnbound).

As MediaUnbound's CEO and co-founder Michael Papish explained to us last week, the company believes that a hybrid approach, which uses both algorithms and human input from experts, will provide the best results for users.

For eMusic, this means that the recommendations on the site are constantly fine-tuned by your own actions on the site, MediaUnbound's algorithms, and eMusic's editors, which, together with MediaUnbound's high-level teams, constantly evaluate the resulting sets of recommendations (Papish called this the "mosh pit" approach).

Genius: Apple's Black Box

It is hard to evaluate how Apple's Genius feature in iTunes really works, but Apple does have a few advantages. Because iTunes users often rate the songs in their library, Apple gets a lot of explicit information about a song's popularity. Users also regularly transmit information about how often they played and skipped a song to Apple's central servers.

Besides this, however, we can only speculate about what Apple looks at to give its recommendations. They surely evaluate playlists and the similarities between different users' libraries, for example. We can only assume that Apple uses a mashup of various recommendation techniques to come up with its own suggestions.

The results are generally quite good, though often either very predictable or completely random.

Opening the Black Box

In general, a black box approach similar to Apple's is still common for most recommendation services. Very few services give users a clear insight into why a certain song was recommended and the ability to fine-tune these selections (Pandora is a good example of a service that readily provides this kind of information). We are, however, seeing a trend towards users getting slightly more control over these recommendations. Slacker Radio, for example (see our review of their iPhone app here), lets users choose whether they want to hear more hits or more obscure artists on their radio stations. Mufin, too, gives users some control over how similar the recommended songs should be.

What Does Your Ideal Music Recommendation Engine Sound Like?

In general, we feel that every one of these approaches can provide us with relevant suggestions, depending on what kind of recommendation we are looking for. Of course, sometimes the easiest way to find great songs is to simply forget about the algorithms and editors and just look at what the people around you listen to on a service like imeem.

Do you have a favorite service for music recommendations? Or do you have some recommendations for these services that might help them to improve their service? Just let us know in the comments.

ReadWriteWeb Resources for Recommendation Technologies

We will be profiling other recommendation companies in upcoming posts. We also invite you to explore our custom ReadWriteWeb Resources:

• RWW Recommendation Industry Feed Favorites OPML file (save link)
• RWW Recommendation Industry Feeds - Best of Feed (copy and paste to your reader)
• Click to preview the above feeds before subscribing (pop-up window)
• RWW Recommendation Site Search (Visit and Bookmark)

CC-licensed logo image used courtesy of Flickr user shankar, shiv.

We don't really expect Apple to create a web-based iTunes anytime soon. Why should they? The company's iPods and iPhones dominate the mp3 player market and are locked down so that they, in theory, could only work with the company's iTunes software.

Could SoundCloud Set Us Free?

But then we saw the player from SoundCloud, the company that "moves music." Until now, SoundCloud has been focusing on their service that lets musicians and fans freely distribute and share tracks with each other via the web. Using widget-based dropboxes combined with a social network of fellow music fans, SoundCloud makes it simple to move large files over the web without having to resort to FTP, bitTorrent, or other complicated services.

Right now, their new Cloud Player doesn't do all that much, we'll admit. In fact, we're sorry to say that it actually seems overwhelmed and broken. When trying to create a playlist, we just see the spinning circle. When we tried to play a track, all we got was a message: "transferring data from api.soundcloud.com." Obviously, this app is nowhere near ready for primetime. It looks like a great idea, sure, but one that's only a pretty picture of what could be. We love that idea, though - an app for finding and playing tracks, discovering music, saving playlists, even creating smart playlists - all in the cloud.

Yet with the Cloud Player's iTunes-like interface, we could begin to imagine a new world where music could be shared, distributed, organized, and played, all over the web. The only missing piece to total music domination is device support. Assuming the Cloud Player ever worked, how could we get the music from the web to our iPods and iPhones?

The easy answer would be iPhone app, of course. But given that SoundCloud's service is essentially a new platform for music distribution and discovery, it would actually be a competitor to iTunes, and Apple doesn't tend to approve apps that offer competing services. To get approval, they would have to integrate with iTunes somehow, perhaps by presenting links to purchase songs in the iTunes online store. Alternately, they could forgo the iTunes App Store altogether and build something for the open-source Android OS instead...no worries about app approval there.

Yes, It's Broken...But Is It Unique?

Let's backtrack a little. We see that the Cloud Player is simply not a worthwhile app just yet. It doesn't even work, so why are we bothering to review it? The answer is because SoundCloud, the company behind the app, is doing something different that many other online music streaming services do not: distribution and monitoring. Let me explain...

Here at ReadWriteWeb, we love services like Lala, The Hype Machine, and Last.fm for example. Hype Machine tracks mp3 blogs, Last.fm uses free music to encourage legal music sales, but Lala looks the most promising for a true move to the cloud. At least, so far. The company's latest business model revolves around not just being your "jukebox in the sky" but letting you own tracks for streaming forever. 10 cents per track. $1 per album. With four major labels on board and lots of indies, the catalog looks good.

But how does Lala amass its music collection? From you, the user, uploading your mp3s to the web. Lala gives you the rights to the unlimited streaming of your own tracks, and everything else can be streamed just once. Combine that with an iPhone app and you've routed around iTunes altogether. (Guess that's why it's not approved yet).

Lala has it all except for one thing: the source of the tracks themselves - they had to come from somewhere, right? You probably either torrented them or purchased them...possibly even from iTunes. For Lala to beat iTunes at its own game, Lala needs direct access to the artists and their music.

That's where SoundCloud is different. With their service that "moves music," an artist could upload a track to SoundCloud, which then could immediately become available in your web-based iTunes replacement app (The Cloud Player), and perhaps then it could be instantly streamed over your mobile device, too. Meanwhile, when you're on your desktop or netbook, you only need browse to the cloud player's web site to have a fully functional music management tool where you make playlists, share them with friends, and seek out new music. Combine that with Lala's and Last.fm's model which lets you stream tracks for free to encourage purchases, and you have a system that no longer needs the desktop, the music labels, proprietary software or hardware. In addition, on the flip side, the artists using SoundCloud can track the distribution of their tracks, the number of plays, and more.

Sounds great, right? Well, if only it worked. The Cloud Player is open source, though. Maybe you can fix it?

We really like what Magnatune is doing and we think this business model is great, but we're concerned that the service is still too antiquated in its music delivery to get customers beyond the fact that it has a really obscure catalog.

The Problems With Magnatune

Unfortunately, Magnatune doesn't offer much in the way of discovery of the best music on the site. There's some playlists by genre and that's good. You can see a handful of the top sellers. In this era of recommendation technology, though, the company should really facilitate discovery better than it does. Millions of people are now used to visiting Last.fm, entering a known artist's name and then getting hours of high-quality related content. It's going to be hard to get too many of them to go back to a black box point and click catalog.

That's especially the case when you're looking through a catalog of items you've never seen or heard of before. Independent music stores are at a huge sales deficit because their products have no name recognition. Additionally, and no one likes it when I say this (but it's true), most of the music on sites like this isn't any good! If you've ever looked for Creative Commons music before you know that's the case. I dare you to post links to your favorite independent and CC music in comments.

None the less, you've got to admire what they're doing at Magnatune. For fans of classical music and new age piano, there may be a lot there for you. Otherwise, we're not so sure.

Additionally, it's going to be hard for even a business model this cool to top the all around awesome new music service that Lala just rolled out, for example.

Your Music on Lala

You do not have to upload your complete music collection to Lala to be able to play it online. Instead, you download a small desktop client that goes out and looks for music on your computer that Lala already knows, which it then simply puts into your playlist. If Lala doesn't know the song, or if the song hasn't been licensed by Lala, the desktop client will upload it to the service.

Once your music has been uploaded, you will be greeted with a standard music player interface, where you can drag and drop songs into playlists, search your collection (which is very fast and easy), shuffle through your songs, and pretty much do anything you expect to be able to do with a desktop jukebox as well.

The only major restriction of the online music player is that it only displays 50 songs per page. The quick and easy search function and the iTunes like browser at the top of the page make up for this is some ways, but if you are used to just browsing through your collection, Lala will take some getting used to.

Music Store

The music store itself is interesting in its own right, though it is also derivative of its competitors. However, it comes with a number of interesting social features and, unlike in iTunes, you get one full play of every song before you are restricted to a 30 second sample. You can also buy the rights to play the song over the web for 10 cents.

Competition

There are, of course, already a fair number of stores that sell DRM-free MP3s, including Amazon and Rhapsody, while services like Imeem already allow you to play songs in full on the net with fewer restrictions than Lala.

Lala has also announced that it will release an iPhone application in the near future. With that, it will also take on Pandora and services like Simplify Media.

Lala's real advantage over its online competitors is that it is a one-stop shop that already holds all your music. The pricing model is interesting and Lala will surely get a lot of 10 cent impulse buys, but the real power behind Lala is in its ability to bring all your music together in one place on the net, just like iTunes did for the desktop.

Web Clips are displayed right above your messages in your inbox. To customize your selection of webclips, head to the 'Settings' section of your Gmail account. Listed in your settings should be a tab that reads 'Web Clips'. Select this tab and you'll be presented with a list of default Web Clips. The default selection categories range from News, Business, Lifestyle, Sports, Tech, and Fun.

Customize Your Web Clips

You can choose from any of the listed sites or simply add your own list of blogs. To add your own selections, use the search box to type in the URL of your favorite blog. Google will attempt to find the RSS feed for the site you entered. If it's found, click the add button and you're all set.

The Benefits of Web Clips

I've only recently started using web clips thanks to a tip from our very own Lead Writer, Marshall Kirkpatrick. They're a great way to keep track of those sites that you wouldn't want to miss a thing from. They can also help when trying to manage both your email and feeds first thing in the morning. Use Gmail's web clips for those sites that you'd like to get the latest updates from while you check your email. It'll be a lot less clutter and once less thing to multitask.

A new study released this week in the UK found that 80% of respondents said they were "happy to have [15 second pre-roll] video ads if it meant they could watch free video" on their phones. Almost nothing's shocking in the wacky world of mobile advertising-to be, but one thing we found absolutely horrifying in the discussion around the study was this: incoming-call ads.

A company called Gigafone appears to be pioneering the practice of showing users advertising when calls or SMS come in to a phone. The system is fully opt-in, users provide personal data about themselves and then the ads are targeted to them based on demographics and interests.

RSS readers can click here to see a poll about incoming-call mobile ads.

The benefits to consumers include more targeted ads, discounts and in some cases phone rate subsidies. It's a little reminiscent of the successful efforts by Blyk, a European company that shows ads in exchange for free minutes and text messages.

Consumer Reactions

Gigafone reports that a huge percentage of customers in test markets are satisfied with the system. People we asked, though, seemed to think that they should receive heavy subsidies for undergoing such an experience. No doubt mobile companies are unlikely to offer the amount of subsidies that customers would like - but we can imagine how this would go down. The practice of offering discounts on nearly everything at the grocery store in exchange for personal information and permission to track our shopping activities would provide an excellent model for this kind of mobile advertising.

Are grocery shoppers who participate in such schemes really getting discounts, or are the rare few who do not just paying a tax? We can imagine a de facto tax being levied against mobile consumers unwilling to have ads shown when their phones ring.

Even though it's opt-in, there are lots of consumer controls and it could help pay for phone service, we (this author at least) do not want commercials associated with the Pavlovian response of paying particular attention to our phones when they ring. There's just something disturbing about the idea.

A 15 second pre-roll ad before watching free video? That sounds annoying enough. A personalized ad when I pull my phone out of my pocket to answer it? No thanks.

But the competition here is not Microsoft. For the business user, the competition is Blackberry; and Blackberry is not Microsoft. I am a long time Blackberry user and it is seldom annoying. It just gets the job done. So unlike when I switched back from Windows to Mac, which I did with a big sigh of relief, I am in no hurry to switch based on anything wrong with what I have.

And a few reviews are making me think that iPhone could be a high maintenance date. Sure, high maintenance dates can be fun, but I am judging this on boring utility criteria. For example:

1. Keyboard. I am ready to be convinced by touch-screen keyboards. But I am not sure I want to spend the time adjusting. Outside the USA, where SMS is the major use of a mobile phone, I think this is a big deal. Flipping to horizontal is neat, but does this work for email?

2. Battery. Any mobile device that cannot do a full day's work and play without re-charge is a pain. You don't want to be in "don't leave home without it" mode regarding your charger unless you are going for more than a day. On a normal day, it's plug it in before you go to sleep and pick it up in the morning.

3. It's a bit big as a phone. OK, so is the Blackberry. But, as they say, size matters when you are holding it to your ear. Some people express almost comical amusement at the idea of using the iPhone as a phone - "you still call people, how quaint". Then don't call it a Phone, because it does set that expectation.

I know that resistance is futile. I will get an iPhone eventually. Or Blackberry will give me a better browser, which is really what I love about iPhone.

The killer app for me? Skype to Skype calls over WiFi. I believe that requires an unlocked iPhone. It would dramatically change the economics of mobile phones. Which AT&T certainly knows and will be resisting for as long as possible.

Plus a really slim but full function collapsible keyboard, so I can write full length stuff as easily as on my laptop. And then a simple way to plug into any screen that's around, so I can edit docs stored in the cloud. So that I can stop lugging around my laptop; that's a big win for people who spend a lot of time away from their desk.

My guess is that the iPhone ecosystem will bring all these things to market fairly soon. The iPhone is the first real new platform since Windows (sorry, Facebook).

Image: After the iPhone Keynote, Jan 2007; pic by mac steve