Well, looks like we weren't the only ones wondering about the two big questions of the day -- the New York Times sat down briefly with Steve Jobs post-event this morning and found out the whys and wherefores on the following:

• Why doesn't the iPod nano take still pictures? Jobs says that the tiny teensy CMOS sensor in the nano isn't up to the quality standards needed for stills; it's too thin. "The sensors for doing a still camera... they are just way too thick to ever fit inside the Nano."
• What about a camera for the iPod touch? The product path for the touch, apparently, is that it's a great gaming device and it's the lowest investment option for getting access to the App Store; given that, the push was to get it down to a price point everyone could afford instead of adding new features like a camera. "So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We don't need to add new stuff - we need to get the price down where everyone can afford it." Not to say it won't ever happen.

So much for my idea of a firmware update to the nano enabling still images down the road.

Considering that it's turned out to be one of the most successful products in consumer electronics history, the volume of nay-saying on the iPhone has been constant and ongoing -- many dismissed the phone when it came out, when it was announced, and even when it was just a glimmer of a hint of a rumor. Now the New York Times Sunday Magazine (and the accompanying blog The Medium) is featuring Virginia Heffernan's tale of hesitancy, anomie and frustration under the surely-not-meant to-draw-online-traffic headline "I Hate My iPhone." Interestingly, just pages away, the paper profiles several successful iPhone developers in a story about the App Store gold rush.

Heffernan's criticisms of the iPhone swing between the rational (the challenge of adapting to the on-screen keyboard, AT&T's mediocre coverage) and the surreal (dislike of the device's "tarty little face" and how it "kept aloof from the animal warmth of my leather wallet"). In fairness, she does admit that she's not thinking particularly clearly. In the end, she returns to the AT&T store where the sales rep seemed to know that she was a troublesome case, and swapped out her iPhone for a Blackberry.

It may be heretical to admit it here, but it's true: the iPhone is not for everyone... excuse me, they've come to take away my fanboy badge, this will take just a second. There, all done; I'm back.

Yes, if you're looking for a high-speed texting and email platform because you live your life in text messaging, the iPhone's keyboard will frustrate you; if you don't care about the incredible universe of apps, the first-rate media player and the best mobile browser, you'd be better off with a Blackberry and a permanent keyboard.

Yes, the iPhone's phone is probably its weakest offering, and the AT&T network has bigger dead zones than Anthony Michael Hall; if you can't tolerate the intermittent dropped call or fuzzy audio (or my personal top annoyance, the "I'm on 3G and my phone just doesn't ring" issue), and you want to focus on the phone, get a free RAZR or shiny Samsung.

In my personal transition from the Blackberry to the iPhone, I found plenty of gotchas and things that took adjustment (#1 is not being able to keep an IM application running in the background, #2 is having to cycle through the home screen to switch apps, and #3 is not being able to easily copy URLs or phone numbers for use elsewhere), but I'm still finding new and enjoyable things about the iPhone every day; my Blackberry was staid and predictable, a useful tool but not a spark of innovation or a way for me to accomplish things I never could do before.

I know there are thousands of unhappy iPhone users, and thousands more who haven't upgraded to the 2.x firmware, visited the App Store or explored one-tenth of the capabilities of their mobile computing platforms. When I saw a family friend a few weeks ago, a lady of a certain age, she was surprised and puzzled when I asked her where she synced her not-that-new iPhone ("I don't understand. If I want to put music or apps on it, I have to connect it to a computer? I have my grandchildren put photos on the phone for me!"). The iPhone isn't for everyone, and there's no judgement in that; you aren't obligated to love it, want it or find it useful. Forgive us, still, if we think that many of you (NY Times columnists excepted) will love it once you try it.

[Hat tip to Apple 2.0]

Hot on the heels of the Macworld Live show Wednesday morning, we caught up with New York Times columnist David Pogue to talk about what's hot (and not) at the show this year, his thoughts on the "Philnote" and the future of Macworld, the iPhone's phenomenal success in 2008 and his undying love (ahem) for the Blackberry Storm.

Click through to check it out.

Opera Software CEO Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner said in a New York Times interview yesterday that its engineers have developed a version of the Opera web browser that works on the iPhone, but Apple has rejected it for the App Store because it competes with Safari.

This isn't unprecedented: Apple rejected an app called Podcaster possibly because it duplicates functionality in an upcoming version of the iPhone software. Podcaster was (for a time) available via ad-hoc distribution before that, too, was shut down.

Daring Fireball's John Gruber suggests that Apple rejected Opera because the browser included its own JavaScript interpreter, something forbidden by the iPhone SDK developer agreement.

Opera makes two flavors of its mobile web browser: Opera Mini for most mobile phones, BlackBerry, Palm, or Windows Mobile; and Opera Mobile, a more featured version for Symbian and Windows Mobile. A beta version of Opera Mini for Android is also in development.

Update: Gruber used his massive Rolodex over the weekend to determine through an unnamed source that the app may not have even been submitted to the App Store. Huh.

Apple Senior Manager Wei-han Lien let slip that teams acquired with the purchase of PA Semi are working on an ARM-based processor for the iPhone, and possibly other devices, according to The New York Times.

While not a huge surprise, as Steve himself said that's what the former PA Semi staff was working on, the question was still "what kind of processor?"

ARM variants can be customized to meet the needs of very specific devices, including supporting the multi-touch screen, or QuickTime playback. Electronista suggests that this supports earlier hints that Apple licensed the architecture from ARM under a secretive arrangement in late June.

Lien updated a section of his LinkedIn profile to describe what he was working on. (The NYT has a screenshot.) Oops. The profile, as you might expect, has been changed.

While most people are waiting in line for their soon-to-be new friend, pal and everyday communications device, the world's top tech reviewers have already been playing with the long awaited device. Below is a summary of their findings along with links to their full reviews of the iPhone 3G.

Walt Mossberg (Wall Street Journal)

• Pros: Faster cell network data speeds, GPS
• Cons: Weaker battery life due to 3G/GPS
• Bottom Line: If you don't already have an iPhone and can live with the weaker battery life, then you should go ahead and buy; otherwise wait out for the 2.0 firmware update (hmm... I think I've heard this advice somewhere else)
  

David Pogue (New York Times)

• Pros: You can talk and access 3G data network simultaneously, cheaper, improved audio quality
  
• Cons: 3G isn't wide-spread, AT&T pricing,
  
• Bottom Line: "iPhone 3G is a nice upgrade," 2.0 firmware update will make your original iPhone in most ways similar to the iPhone 3G
  

Edward Baig (USA Today)

• Pros: Faster data network, cheaper, GPS, Visual Voicemail
  
• Cons: Slow EDGE speeds when not in 3G area, no video, no memory expansion
  
• Bottom Line: "The Sequel, is worth the wait," he also shows a side-by-side comparison between EDGE and 3G speeds
  

As an interesting note: David Pogue says that the iPhone's GPS antenna is too small to provide you with turn-by-turn directions in Google Maps -- this is something that Apple has failed to note until now.

NY Times tech columnist David Pogue has done it again. I'll admit that more than once I've wondered about David after watching one of his whimsical video reports for the Times, but then he offers up a gem like the one in his latest column and I realize why he is a powerful tech columnist and I'm a lowly blogger.

Pogue takes a look at several Macro programs for both Mac and PC (a Macro program is one that allows you to assign certain actions to corresponding key strokes. Launch an app with a push of a button, have a script fire off, things of that nature). He takes Keyboard Maestro, iKey, and QuicKeys for a spin on the Mac side. They all fare well, but QuicKeys is the one the gets the highest marks, and the one that spawned the tip which has me believing in Pogue all over again. QuicKeys allows you to remap the tilde key (pictured to the right) to any button you would like. David uses it as a left hand delete button so he doesn't have to move his hand off the mouse whilst editing. Brilliant.

Remember when Apple's "retail experiment" was viewed as a risky, borderline-nutty strategy? Recall how Gateway and other technology companies were running away from their mall outposts while Apple was rolling out its first stores back in 2001? Randall Stross at the New York Times remembers [registration required], and he says that "[o]f the many predictions in the world of technology that have turned out to be spectacularly wrong, a prominent place should be made for what the pundits said in 2001 when Apple opened its first retail store in Tysons Corner, Va." Apple has succeeded tremendously in retail, partly due to a strategy of supporting a positive customer experience (Genius Bar!) and partly due to an unexpectedly popular product (the iPod).

Stross quotes Apple's quarterly report on retail numbers -- over 180 stores, sales of $855 million -- and compares the Apple retail mojo to the Sony Style stores' relatively low impact. He also notes the impending return of Dell to the retail channel; not through Dell-branded stores, but through Wal-Mart... there's a really positive retail association for you. As long as Apple continues to make an emotional connection with buyers at the point of sale, it'll be hard to beat the Apple Stores.

via Philip Elmer-Dewitt at Apple 2.0

October 2001. Apple introduces a new portable music player that it declares is much easier to use. So much easier, in fact, that it may "broaden a nascent market in the way the Macintosh once helped make the personal computer accessible to a more general audience". This new device is called iPod.

The New York Times article that describes the iPod is pessimistic. The iPod-buying market would probably be limited to the 7 million existing owners of Apple Macintosh computers since no Windows support was provided at the time. And the new iPod might support piracy, although CEO Steve Jobs assured the music industry that steps would be taken to prevent songs from being transfered from the device to other computers.

The 2001 iPod's 5GB hard drive was large enough to store 1000 songs.

Uncle Walt likes it, but what does David Pogue, NY Times tech columnist, think of the now shipping Apple TV? The short answer: he likes it.

Pogue compares Apple's offer to the XBox 360 and the Netgear EVA8000 (seen to the right). The XBox 360 is big and noisy, but offers you HD downloads. Pogue also found navigating the menus a little clumsy with the joystick. Speaking of clumsy, Pogue says the EVA8000, which can stream content from any folder on any of your Macs or PCs and can even play tunes purchased from iTunes (though that's a PC only feature for some reason) has the stink of a 1.0 product all over it. The menu system is ugly, setup was difficult, and overall the experience was not pleasant.

Pogue also included a little tidbit I hadn't seen anywhere else. Thanks to the magic of iTunes/iPod syncing if you are watching a video on your iPod, pause, hook you iPod up to your Mac, and then turn on your Apple TV it will remember where you paused that video and start from that point on the Apple TV. Nifty.

The Apple TV wins based on design, ease of use, and ease of setup. Who cares that it only works with iTunes (though on both Mac and PC) and that there is no HD content to be had at the iTunes Store (not yet, anyway)?

David Pogue, tech columnist at the New York Times, has listed his favorite product features of 2006. This list is all about the small touches on products that really make you think that someone thought about these items before they tried selling them. One Apple feature made it on the list, and I must agree with the good Mr. Pogue on this one. The Magsafe connector is a marvel of technology. As David points out there is no 'right side' on the plug, and it pops out if the cord is jerked instead of dashing your MacBook, or MacBook Pro, on the floor.

Check out the full column for David's other favorites (including the Zune's squirting ability).

The New York Times revealed this morning that iTunes sales only account for about twenty two songs per iPod. The rest, presumably, are ripped from the owner's collection of CDs or are obtained from various other--presumably both legal and nefarious--sources.

I'm not sure what the big deal is about this. A $22 accessory sale on top of the original iPod price seems like a nice bonus to me from a financial point of view. And the "analysis" of this trend? "IPods are not sitting around generating dozens and dozens of transactions every quarter. People buy a certain number of songs, and then they stop," the Times quotes analyst Josh Bernoff of Forrester Research.

I think more likely that some iPod people are iTunes buyers and many more are not. There are many legal ways to fill your iPod with content and I'm guessing that purchasing physical CDs and then ripping them is still the way of choice, even in a world of easy intangible purchases.

Open Culture, the website which recently brought TUAW readers a dose of podcast culture, reports on a series of 22 podcasts available from the New York Times. Various podcasts come in either daily or weekly flavors and center around popular sections and features of the paper. Podcasts include Science Times, Tech Gadgets, the Ethicist and so forth.

I'm quickly becoming a big 'open culture' fan, as they keep digging up these great podcast media finds.

...or not. Jan's post about the latest brewing business suggestion that Apple should buy YouTube betrays a strange trend in the news and blogosphere. Apparently, if a media-related company is either floundering or doing well but lacking a sure-fire business model, they're fresh meat for an Apple acquisition.

Remember the rumors of Apple buying TiVo last year? TiVo's stock shot up 17 percent simply because the rumors started making their rounds. Now these rumors of Apple buying YouTube are fluttering about, and they simply don't make any sense in my book. Apple already has a ton of branding invested in the iTMS - including a very, very healthy video offering - and (as far as I know) they're the only major service which offers their own YouTube-like, grassroots media outlet: the Podcast directory. As Jan also mentioned yesterday, anyone can get a podcast listed in the iTMS, so they've already traveled down the road of offering a strong dose of user-generated content.

These claims of YouTube being a perfect buy sound a little far-fetched too - no one can figure out how they're making money (NYT even admits that in their third paragraph), and the company has never dropped even a hint to clear up the confusion. As far as everyone can tell right now, they're spending kagillions on bandwidth without much of a business model besides 'place one or two banner ads.' Let's not forget this is also digg's 'business model' at the moment, and that "Kevin made $60m" story from Business Week was thoroughly debunked as being nothing more than an estimate; they don't have a dime of that money in their pocket. In fact, they're allegedly barely breaking even - and they don't eat nearly as much bandwidth as the video-intensive YouTube.

Which leads me to the mortal question: how would YouTube show Apple the money? Could Apple charge $1.99, or even $.99, for that hilarious compilation of funny cats? My gut reaction is 'probably not,' though given the things people pay for these days, I could easily be wrong there. Nevertheless, I just don't see how acquiring what must be a money-pit of a company could benefit Apple, when they already have most of the tools and features in place to offer YouTube-like services and community on their own with the iTMS.

Time, of course, will tell on this one, but my money is on Jobs and co. saving their check book for a different rainy day. Just because a company is up a creek without a business model, doesn't mean Apple should be the one to toss them a paddle.

There's an amusing story in the New York Times this morning about  a man and his iPod. Having been long separated from his companion (it had been away for repairs for a couple of months), Thomas Beller was glad to finally have his iPod back. While rushing to catch the subway, he watched in shock as the iPod fell from his coat, skidded across the floor and slipped into that small space between the platform and the train. It was down on the tracks. What happened next...well, we'll just let you read the article. Let's just say he really loves his iPod. Who could blame him?