Almost everyone else in the blogosphere has said stuff about the iPhone. It is very tempting but I've fallen. At least to say something before we have seen a product is a get out.

I have a Sony Clie PalmOS PDA, a Sony Ericsson phone and an iPod and an iPhone could be a neat replacement for all three. It'd certainly save time and complexity in syncing the stuff around. But the battery life on the phone is fantastic, the storage capacity on the iPod is wonderful and the text input on the PDA is the best of all three. Therefore to have a single device replace all three - is a hard act. The Clie has Buetooth, WiFi, a camera (no flash), plays music and has a card slot. The Sony Ericsson phone has Bluetooth, camera (no flash), plays music and has a card slot. The iPod (4G photo) has no Bluetooth, no WiFI, no card slot but plays music and has a huge store.

So the iPhone can have WiFi, Bluetooth, plays music, has apps, has a camera. It probably will cost (initially) the same as buying a new iPod and a replacement PDA. Even if the phone functionality is as good a normal Sony Ericsson phones then I could be tempted to replace the PDA and phone with it. The naysayers who place the price as too high are comparing it to a phone rather than seeing it as a new iPod with all the other stuff.

The bigger questions for me are about the platform as a means to deliver apps and services - being able to use WiFi instead of the phone; being able to use efficient data transfer mechanisms on the mobile networks. Having the apps, integrate with the phone and mobile data experiences.

I just hope that this is the first in a range of mobile devices from Apple that converge the mobile voice, data with a hand-held computing device - and better than the preceding historical devices: the Newton, Palm Pilots, WinCE, Windows Mobile, Treo, Blackberry and Symbian. There are a lot of lessons to be learned and incorporated.

We shall see...starting in the USA in June. Though they seem to be more concerned with the choice of mobile carrier.

Much has been said about the removal of computer from the name of Apple Inc. This has fuelled statements from the usual news-, rumour- and seer-communities, coupled with the delays to Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) and the focus on Apple TV and the iPhone. Clearly, as a long-time user of Apple stuff, I have a view on this as well. I am not unhappy with the name change. Perhaps it is honest of Apple to say that it is no longer merely a computer company. We've not moaned against Sony who seem to make all sorts of stuff - TV, VCRs, Music players, Computers, etc. We've got use to Microsoft being a hardware company (keyboards, mice, xbox). Similarly, we have combined companies such as HP, IBM who do both. All the best to Apple - maybe they can stimulate some more innovation, integration and convergence into the marketplace - I hope so.

The extension of Apple into the the other things that are connected with computers is not new - they were first with the LaserWriter to go with their PostScript-driven software; they had their own keyboards, mice, etc. They had their own PDA (invented the term), a very early digital camera. Then to extend to the wireless networks, the cards, the access points and more recently the iPods. It's not new - we shouldn't be surprised. It is often to kick-start the introduction of new technology - PostScript, PDA, WiFi. Perhaps it surprising that some Apple-branded products have not appeared - an Apple HD Camcorder; and some have appeared late - iPod HiFi for example.

I guess that we need to remember that Apple Inc are a business first and foremost and must turn a profit. That's the nature of capitalism. Apple's history means that they have launched into a new market and then as the third parties have matured they have withdrawn their products - witness the LaserWriter, the QuickCam, the Newton. The iPod has become such a phenomenal success that they have persisted. The move of Apple Inc to services is also not new - remember AppleLink?

What does the future hold? I don't think that Apple is going to change to a Sony-style consumer electronics with DVD players, TVs, hi-fi, ICE, etc. Sony are struggling enough with the other players in that market. But to add it's own values of total user experience of digital media - with end to end integration, convergence and ease of use - that means some strong products will come and AppleTV is but the next step.

As I listened to someone else talking this morning, I was thinking along the same lines and then as my mind is inclined to do go off at tangents and metaphors. I pondered the nature of our society and then the smaller sub-groups within it. I was thinking that a lot of behaviour is very individualistic and even selfish (perhaps that's the true nature of man). Our consumer, individualistic, no respecter of authority society is driven in a metaphorical way by being receivers - we get, we watch, we don't get that involved. But then how to have a better, is to transmit as well as receive - which is a rephrasing of a well-know and significant statement.

If individuals are more often that not receivers then who or what are the transmitters? Are they the movers and shakers, the trend setters, the influential people in our society? For many it seems to be the celebrities - but I don't follow that - more often than not - it is in my nature to be the opposite! Just perverse I suppose. But I have my influencers - so living some memories and some written. Maybe we all re-transmit what we receive - but the danger is that we lose some stuff in this process - we may add our own perspectives - but what sort of transmitters are we? Though many people do not respect authority - they give authority to their influencers - implicitly by letting them shape their lives, behaviour and thoughts.

We should all be transmitting from ourselves and checking to what do we give authority. We should also do as much transmitting as we receive. We're not dumb radios that merely reproduce what we have received - we are walkie-talkies (hmm...) that broadcast as well as receive. Though of course, my metaphor shows that it takes less energy to receive than to transmit.

What I need to do is make sure that the signals I send are a) good b) true c) honest and d) positive wherever possible.

I'll stop now before I overuse my metaphor.