I like the way Schiau Studios thinks -- when customers complained about the price of their $2.99US App Store game Alchemize, they raised the price up to $39.99. Over on the TouchArcade forums, they make their case: most devs, they say, when faced with complaints about price, will just lower their price even though their software is already cheap. So they wanted to buck the trend, and instead raised it up to almost $40 (which, incidentally, is slightly more than what you might pay for a handheld console game).

Lest you simply complain that they were greedy, they say they were only out to make a point: everyone who purchased the game at the higher price point will have all of their money go to charity, and now that the game's back at the $2.99 price point, 33% of all the profits to be gained will go to the same charity. Regardless of whether the game's any good or not, we like their thinking.

Can we all agree to stop griping about price points? I've actually heard this come up lately on a comedy podcast of all places -- when Chicago broadcasting legend Steve Dahl (and one of my favorites) started up a podcast about a month ago, and introduced an app to go along with it. Steve was inundated with comments complaining about the $2.99 price, which he responded to with a great argument on the show: he's put a lot of money into the app and the show behind it, and if you're already a fan of his, paying less than the cost of a cup of Starbucks should not even be an issue.

Sure, when the App Store first started up, it was the Wild West -- both prices and quality were all over the place. But at this point, Apple's review system has more or less settled down, and blogs like ours are full of recommendations, with enough free apps to last any rabid app user most of their iPhone time. If you have any interest in an app at all, a couple of bucks shouldn't be enough to give you pause -- either pick it up and make sure the dev gets their due (small as that may be), or move on to find an app you'd rather buy.

Wi-Fi connectivity problems are not limited to the iPhone 3GS, not by a long shot. The iPhone 3G is widely reported to have connectivity problems that, according to the large number of people discussing it on the Apple Support Discussions, dwarf the reports regarding the 3GS.

In over fourteen Apple Discussion threads, over six hundred messages have been posted with the first one being written on June 17th, shortly after the release of iPhone 3.0 software. These threads have been read by thousands of users. Unfortunately, to date, a solution is not at hand.

The problem, verified by many, is that when updating to the new software, Wi-Fi connectivity on the iPhone 3G either decreased or vanished entirely. Those who were used to getting full bars of Wi-Fi connectivity now experience markedly less bars. Worse, even if some signal strength bars are displayed, often there is no Internet connectivity.

Many solutions have been proposed including resetting the router, changing settings (seemingly at random), and even putting the 3G in the freezer:

"Also i might note, I turned off wifi, turned off the phone, put it in the freezer (in a bag) for 10 mins, turned the phone back on, put the phone right next to my wifi antenna and then turned on wifi and it joined, it JUST joined and I couldnt believe it," says one forum poster. Several others report similar results, but this fix did not last long. In fact, blog posts have been written about possible solutions, but none of them seemed to pan out after using Wi-Fi for a short period of time.

Some writers have said that the 3.1 update will fix the problem while a larger number say that the new software release won't help at all.

Did your brand new iTV just go on the iFritz? Or possibly your iPhone took a cue from Mr. Jobs and prank called Japa-

Wait, they aren't out yet?

Well, maybe these two shiny new pre-release Apple Discussion forums, one for the Apple TV and another for the iPhone, will still come in handy for chatting about everything you need before you lay down your credit card(s). Topics are already flying in these forums, such as whether the iPhone's EDGE data speed is really all that bad, how much the data plan will cost in the first place and how to get your DVD movies into iTunes for transmission to the Apple TV. With all this chatter going on already, you should be well-prepared once these products actually land.

If you're using an Intel Mac with any of Apple's AirPort base stations, you might have noticed some 'less than stellar' performance after updating to 10.4.8, as well as wonky connection problems that Apple tried issuing a support doc for. As an owner of both a MacBook and an Intel Core 2 Duo iMac, I can personally vouch that Apple's doc has a ways to go before it solves this most frustrating of wireless problems.

While troubleshooting this issue over the weekend, I came across a few new threads at Apple's discussion forums for AirPort and, more specific to my setup, the AirPort Express. In particular, this AirPort Express-related thread contains some theories and potential solutions from other users in a similar boat. Being that it is now Wednesday, I'm happy to say one of them seems to be working well for me so far, though your mileage may obviously vary. Here's a rundown of my personal setup and the remedy that's bringing some sanity back to my wireless world: typically, I roll with WPA2 Personal security, and since these sketchy connection issues began I've been playing with settings like Interference Robustness and adjusting my APE's (AirPort Express) channel, etc., but to no avail.

As it turns out, users in these forums are beginning to suspect wireless security (at least WPA, not sure about WEP, which seems to be making the ill-advised list these days anyway) as part of the problem, so I simply reset my station with no security. For the past three days, this setup has been working like a charm, though it's understandable if no security simply isn't an option for some users. To help keep our network to ourselves, I turned on 'Create a closed network' in the AirPort tab of the AirPort Admin Utility (that's Apple-speak for "hide SSID"), which simply meant I had to type in my network's name manually from the AirPort menubar item - but you should only have to do this once.

Again, YMMV, but there are a few potential solutions in Apple's discussion forums for these increasingly frustrating AirPort connectivity issues. Let's hope we don't have to keep jury-rigging our base stations for long, and Apple can issue a fix so the "it just works" reputation can actually apply to these things again.

With Gates' bombshell announcement last week that he will be stepping down from his full-time role at Microsoft in 2008 to spend more time with his Gates and Melinda Foundation charity org, I finally came to wonder: how much longer does Steve have at Apple? Both companies were started around the same time and have helped shape the industry as we see it today. That has to be exhausting work, especially for someone like Jobs whose design and management obsessions are now the stuff of legends. Steve already stepped down from his other company, Pixar, so he could spend more time at Apple - but I'm wondering how long that's going to last, and what it means for Apple's future.

Plenty of articles are analyzing the impact of Gates leaving Microsoft, as it's a slightly different situation. Bill is their Senior Software Architect, not the CEO - that's Ballmer, and he'll apparently be staying on and doing the same, shall we say, 'bang-up job' he's been doing since he took that throne. But Steve Jobs is Apple's CEO, and famous for the amount of control he exacts over bringing his the company's visions to life. So what would a two-week's notice from Steve mean to Apple and its burgeoning market?

Honestly, I don't know, and since I am but a lowly blogger, I'll leave it up to those six-figure analysts who 'are people who know people' to pen those pieces. But before those analysts start earning their keep, TUAW wants to hear your thoughts, dear readers: what do you think it will mean for the future of Apple and their products when Steve needs to call it a day?

Yes, before you fire off a flaming comment, we know this is The Unofficial Apple Weblog, but we thought it might be nice to post a tip for those of you who either want or need to play with the next generation of Microsoft Windows, reportedly due out within the decade (hey, it was originally due in 2003 - by its present 2007 date they'll be almost half a decade late already). This Apple Discussions forum thread details a slightly more appealing trick for getting Vista, now in a public beta (but overloaded with download requests as of this writing), to install and run with Boot Camp. Basically, you need to have Boot Camp already set up and installed with Windows XP. Then, burn a DVD of the Vista beta you just downloaded. And before you ask: no, unfortunately, Vista won't run on Parallels Desktop - yet. Parallels has publicly mentioned making this work with a future version, but there is no ETA for when this support will land.

Now - and this is the 'at your own risk' part - you need to use some kind of partition manager (the forum poster used one from within XP, but I've heard you can use one that starts up from within the Vista installer when booting from the DVD) to delete an ambiguous partition that Boot Camp creates that is around 180-200 MB in size. Again, we can't stress this enough: this is done at your own risk - you are messing with your boot record and after this step, Boot Camp won't be able to adjust your partitions or blow away and reclaim your Windows partition anymore. Mac OS X and Windows will still boot just fine, but this isn't an ideal setup for the faint-of-heart Boot Camp user.

if you take the plunge and nuke that partition, however, you should now be able to boot from the Vista DVD and use it to upgrade your copy of Windows XP - which in and of itself could spark a discussion as to whether one should upgrade or install clean new versions of Windows; it usually isn't recommended with Mac OS X, who wants to take bets on Windows' ability to have a smooth OS upgrade ride?

If you try any of this stuff out, feel free to post your thoughts on the experience, and then go wash your hands of one of the dirtiest things you can do to a Mac.

A thread in Apple's support forums discusses complaints of crippled clock speeds after installing yesterday's SMC firmware update on Intel Macs. Upon an apparently successful update, some users checked their min and max clock speeds with CoreDuoTemp to find that their max has been limited to 1000 Mhz, even after using utilities to force their machine to work as hard as it can.

I just used CoreDuoTemp to check my own MacBook Pro's clock speeds to find that it's max is set right where it should be, at 2000 Mhz. However, if your Intel Mac's speed is suspect after successfully installing yesterday's SMC firmware update, check out this forum thread to see if something is really afoot in the land of Intel Mac clock speeds.

[Thanks Aaron]

One of Unsanity's programmers by the name of Rosyna has posted a really interesting commentary on the new MacBook Pros titled Lost in Translation, focusing on some significant issues that need to be addressed. I recommend you check it out, as it raises questions on a number of issues that Steve Jobs seemed to have glazed over in his keynote.

On the flip side though, I couldn't help posting this without offering a response to some of the issues. While I am neither a programmer nor an Apple Engineer, I think I can add a few interesting ideas to the discussion.