Alan Kay (who I’ll get back to in a moment) is credited with a great quote: “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

I’ll add to what Alan said: The second best way is to keep predicting it until someone else gets around to inventing it. And the third best way is to predict something and then spread every rumor possible that is remotely related to that prediction.

When it comes to one of the oldest Apple rumors I can recall, I have clearly done all I can to do the third best thing I can — to echo-chamber it. The rumor is that Apple will one day offer a device that is somewhere between a MacBook and an iPod Touch/iPhone. The device, now being labeled “The MacBook Touch” by the rumorosphere, has once again taken center ring at the Mac Rumor Circus. (Some latter-day rumorists are calling it a “Tablet Mac,” but that’s a rumor of a different color. Steve Jobs will never chase the tablet laptop market for reasons so obvious — even John Dvorak could figure out why.)

A couple of years ago, I posted a list of “All the Apple rumors you’ll ever need.” Of everything on the list — including the iPhone — the only one I’ve ever really craved is “Rumor #3″:

A device that is sort of like an 8″x10″ iPod that does everything a computer does but it won’t be called a tablet computer or an iPod.”

Strangely, for the past two years, if you Googled the phrase, “Rumor #3,” the #1 result has been a link to that list. To you, it might be called a MacBook Touch. But to me, it will always be Rumor #3. For past rumor posts, I’ve even Photoshopped up a version of what a Rumor #3 could look like (right).

But I have a deep, dark confession to make: I’ve never really thought Apple will come out with the product. It has been more wishful thinking than anything else whenever I echo-chambered such reports as this “patent” post on AppleInsider.com. My “rumor” posts have been more fantasy and speculation and desire to have the product I have called an iPod Touchbook (and here), than belief that Apple will offer such a product. Even today, I’m quite cynical and, frankly, don’t believe that such a product is going to be announced anytime soon. (Or, perhaps, I’m tired of being disappointed when these rumors I help spread never pan out, and I’m taking a new tact.)

My lust for a MacBook Touch
started with a 1987
video about a concept product called
the the Knowledge Navigator.

I’ll credit Apple (and in this case, the then “Apple Fellow,” Alan Kay) with first establishing the benchmark for my desire for such a device — and my willingness to serve as conduit for spreading any rumor which comes close to suggesting Apple will one day offer such a product. It started with a concept video Apple produced in 1987 that oozes with Alan Kay concepts. I’ve written about how that video describing the concept technology, “Knowledge Navigator,” set an expectation in my mind — and a generation of those of us who reside among the hyperlink-obsessed — of what one should expect to have one day. Today, now that all of the technology, infrastructure, pricing scale and marketing channels are in place for such a device, many of us are wondering: Where’s my Knowledge Navagator? (In 2003, Jon Udell posted a great item about the Knowledge Navagator concept video.)

A rumor is somewhat like abstract art — until the artist explains exactly what everything means, it can be interpreted anyway one wants. Until Steve Jobs strolls out onto the stage and explains exactly what this device is and what space in our mind it is to occupy, it will be all things to all geeks.

For me, Rumor #3 is about recapturing a little piece of 1987, when the promise of the future was not about feature sets, but about the cool things you could do if you have a device that goes with you everywhere and allows you to travel anywhere.

Note: One thing I didn’t like about the Knowledge Navigator was the “talking head” interface. I’m more of a touch interface person, myself.

Bonus link: The eBook people are finally catching on that a Rumor #3 device makes having a separate device merely to read books rather redundant.

The Important Part: Unlike with other 3G and EVDO (broadband cellular) phones, according to CNet, users of the new iPhone 3G will not be able to “tether” (connect via Bluetooth or cable) their phones with their laptops in a way that allows them to gain access to the Internet with their laptops. Rather, they must have a separate 3G device and a separate account for their laptops.

Personal observations: The other day on Twitter, I wondered aloud if this feature would be allowed with the iPhone:

When I had a Treo w/ EVDO, I could connect my laptop to it via bluetooth and access the ‘net. Will I be able to do that w/ iPhone 3G?

I got my answer today with this post on the CNet site, iPhone Atlas: AT&T says, No! (Also, thanks to the article, I now know the term “tether” is used to describe what I was trying to explain with my less-than-fluent wireless vocabulary.)

I already have an AT&T 3G account that allows me to access the Internet using a Sierra Wireless USB modem. While I think it is ridiculous that tethering is not allowed with the new iPhone 3G, I can balance my disappointment with the knowledge that a Sierra Wireless USB modem can be shared by anyone in my office — all of the username/access codes are stored in the device. In a small business environment, especially one that has multiple employees traveling often, the ability to share the USB 3G modem saves lots of access fees charged by hotels and airports. In other words, our current 3G account is shared by many people, while an iPhone account — even if it allowed tethering — would not benefit us the way our current USB modem does.

I must say, I’m beginning to admire Henry Blodget for his unabashed willingness to ignore any irony others might see in his analytical posts about Amazon.com, like this one that looks at Citi analyst Mark Mahaney’s report that the Amazon Kindle could be a $750 million iPod-like franchise in a couple of years.

Blodget does not explicitly agree with the prediction, indeed, he points out some holes in the theory. He doesn’t fully repudiate it, however.

I’m clearly not a financial analyst and so any disagreements I may have with Mahaney’s predictions have nothing to do with market-share numbers. I have no idea about the revenues or bottom-line impact of future Kindle developments. However, since some of his analysis is based on his personal experience with the device, I feel I can at least weigh in on that front.

First, let me say I use the Kindle frequently. Not quite daily, but several times a week. My review of the Kindle from last December is still accurate. I haven’t really been surprised by anything about it during the past five months. It’s still a clunky, poorly designed piece of hardware with a ridiculous interface. Yet the EVDO (digital cellular)-powered feature that allows one to instantly purchase books from Amazon for less than $10 is near magic. That price-point for books and the instant download are what make the device work for me — and, apparently, the Citi analyst, also.

However, I stand by my earlier prediction — and this is where I find a flaw in Mahaney’s analysis: Apple won’t stand still and let Amazon have this market all to itself. As I’ve written about ad-naseum, a slightly larger iPod Touch linked to eBooks distributed via the iTunes store would match and raise the game with Amazon. At that point, Amazon would be competing with the iTunes distribution channel, but with Amazon hardware that looks and feels like it was designed in Soviet-era Russia.

Also, with Apple in the game, its eBook format would be readable via the Mac or iPhone, as well. The Kindle format is locked into a Kindle device.

As I wrote last November, I’ll continue to use my Kindle until Apple comes out with something like this (even if it’s not in the next couple of weeks):

Of all the gadgets I’ve ever owned, my iPhone has launched the most conversations with people I meet in airports and on airplanes. (Those being the most likely places I’d use it where people I don’t know would notice and not hesitate to ask.) My iPhone starts more conversations than even my MacBook Air — which may be confusing to people because I’ve covered the Apple logo with a Hammock “H” sticker. But even after I tell people how great the iPhone is, I always recommend that they delay purchasing one. “Wait until the 3G version comes out and they drop the price,” I say. “Heck, if you can live without it, don’t purchase one until you can use it with any cell phone carrier.”

I doubt the people who really want an iPhone can wait until they are “officially” unlocked, but the 3G and price-drop may be close at hand if the report on Fortune.com proves true.

Quote:

When the 3G iPhone is introduced this summer, AT&T, the exclusive U.S. iPhone sales partner with Apple, will cut the price by as much as $200, according to a person familiar with the strategy.

Saul Hansel, blogging at NYTimes.com, notes that one aspect of the Fortune report is illogical: that AT&T will only offer the $200-off deal on phones purchased at AT&T Stores, not Apple Stores. I couldn’t agree more with Hansel: there’s no way that part of the story is correct. And if that is from the Fortune’s source, does that not call into question the veracity of anything from the “person familiar with the strategy.”

With that caveat — the Fortune article contains some information that defies logic and all known insight into how Steve Jobs works — if the 3G costs less than $200 for an 8GB model, I will be changing my “friendly advice” from “a wait” into “a buy.”

Back in mid-2007, I wondered aloud why the Google Personalized Homepage was being re-branded iGoogle as the “i” prefix is so much the franchise of another technology company. Today, Google announced enhanced features for using Google on an iPhone, including better integration of iGoogle into iPhone. So, to clear up the confusion, you DO NOT need an iPhone to use iGoogle, but now iPhone iGoogle users have some special iGoogle features to make using it on your iPhone more iSpecial.

Via PaidContent.org, comes news (I guess it’s “news” that the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal are reporting what every Apple rumor site has been saying for weeks) that Apple will announce a rental option for some video purchased via the iTunes Store. However, there’s a new twist to the report today: At least one studio, 20th Century Fox, will start adding an MPEG-4 version to DVDs it sells, allowing purchasers to easily transfer the movie to iTunes or their iPod/iPhones. According to FT.com:

“A digital file protected by FairPlay will be included in new Fox DVD releases, enabling film content to be transferred or “ripped” from the disc to a computer and video iPod. DVD content can already be moved to an iPod but this requires special software and is considered piracy by some studios.

Many people who read that last sentence will know what it means. But if you don’t know, you can find out by clicking over to this website to learn about HandBrake, an open-source, GPL-licensed, multiplatform, multithreaded DVD to MPEG-4 converter, available for MacOS X, Linux and Windows.

For the record, in my opinion, it’s crazy to call what you do with HandBrake piracy. Converting a file is not piracy — it may violate some obscure and legally-dubious terms of usage agreement, but it’s not piracy. You can do perfectly legal things with such a file. Or you can do illegal things, like try to re-sell it. The act of trying to re-sell such a file is piracy — not the conversion of the file.

Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know? Rather than a legal confusion, mine may be merely a confusion of logic. However, I find it an intellectual challenge to understand how I can be pirating something when I purchase a digital file on a DVD and convert the file into another digital format merely for the purpose of watching it on a digital device other than my TV, like a video iPod or iPhone — or on my computer without having to lug around DVDs. I’m not selling copies or even letting others borrow the movie — something I could easily do with a physical DVD. I’m merely transferring digital media I’ve purchased to another device for personal convenience — a variation of time-shifting, which has been determined to be legal. (I guess this makes me what Fake Steve Jobs calls a “freetard.”)

With music files, the industry has pretty-much given up their efforts to turn their customers into criminals when they decide to transfer their purchase between listening platforms. Recording industry schemes like Apple’s ironically-branded FairPlay DRM are slowly going away. (I purchase DRM-free music through Amazon.com. Update: And now I can buy even more DRM-free music via Amazon according to this press release announcing that downloads from Warner Music Group’s vast catalog are available in MP3 format from Amazon starting today. My guess: Anticipate follow-up announcements from all of the other usual suspects, including Apple and Walmart.) It will take a decade or longer, but I’m sure movie studios and, if they actually become popular, eBook publishers, will go through a period of attempting to “protect” media files (translation: keep you from reading what you buy for a Kindle on any other eBook reader). Ultimately, publishers and studios will understand why it makes sense to let their customers buy digital versions of movies or books one time and then view/listen/read it on any digital platform they choose.

(Note: For those who think I might not understand the differing value of content offered in different forms, let me be clear: I’m referring to various “digital” formats of the same digital file. I’m not suggesting that I gain the right to download the movie free because I paid to view the movie in the theatre — however, I think that would be a clever marketing strategy by studios. Here’s a slogan for them: Buy it once, enjoy it forever. But unfortunately, if they did that, the writers wouldn’t have anything to strike about.)

Via the Google Docs Blog, news of the new mobile (”m”) version at docs.google.com/m. Currently, you can only view — not edit — documents (the post indicates that’s a feature on its way). I’ll be trying out the “presentation” feature later and will add a video to this post of what that looks like. If it works and there were an output-to-display “jack”/function/device (whatever?) on an iPhone, (update: see comments) I think this could one day be a road-warriors dream. In the meantime, the above shot is what a spreadsheet looks like. It’s a vocabulary list the 17-year-old and I made for SAT prep.

Later: I experimented with Google Docs presentation on my iPhone and discovered a couple of things. At least in my quick experiment, an imported Power Point presentation into Google docs was extremely slow in the mobile version. Discovering that, I tried creating a quick (as in five minutes) presentation natively in Google docs and the presentation zooms. Here’s a two-minute video of my test, using my quick presentation called: “”Six tips for a presenation you want to share via docs. google.com/m”

Not that you’d ever want to, but you can see the Google Docs version of presentation here if you don’t use Safari. You don’t have to log into Google Docs, but you’ll get a screen making you think you do.

Here are the “Six tips for a presenation you want to share via docs. google.com/m” — saving you from having to watch the video or presentation:

1. Think of a better way — like maybe talking instead of presenting.

2. Don’t use background color or fancy text or graphics or graphs. (It’s tiny and you’re doing this over the Internet so don’t add stuff that will slow it down).

3. Use really big type. (On a tiny screen, even 68 point type will be tiny.)

4. Don’t use bullet points (don’t ever use bullet points. Or numbered tips for that matter).

5. Think vertical and top-heavy. (The control pointer covers up the bottom of the screen so your presentation will look better when displayed vertically. All you need to do is leave plenty of room at the bottom of each slide.)

6. Don’t try to be funny. (Don’t ever try to be funny in a presentation unless you’re a trained professional…and then don’t.)

When I attended Macworld in February, I wrote, “The least impressive thing about the iPhone is that it’s a phone.” Several times, I’ve suggested that getting an iPod with all the iPhone features except the phone” would be a good thing. So, yes, I like what I’ve heard about the iPod touch. I guess, I’m just not a “phone” person, as I primarily use the iPhone in every way possible, but don’t really talk on it that much. Again, that may just be me.

Even better than the iPod touch or iPhone/ATT would have been the iPhone/wifi/voip device Dave Winer suggests as an alternative version of what could have happened over the past few months:

“Suppose Apple had never done the deal with AT&T and they were announcing the iPod Touch today. If they hadn’t announced a deal with Skype or their own software to connect the new iPod to the phone network through wifi, we’d all be speculating about it widely. It would be the obvious next step. And suppose they had announced it. At the same time they could have said “Okay, we know wifi isn’t everywhere yet, but 17 billion Starbucks outlets have them, and you can use your new iPod at every one of them to call anyone, for a very astonishingly low price.” So intstead of propping up the old over-priced locked-down phone system, they’d be like the runner in the 1984 commercial, throwing the torch in the face of the oppressor.

I agree with everything Dave says, except I think there are now, officially, 18 billion Starbucks.

Here’s my alternative to Dave’s alternative. Suppose that software hack that opens the iPhone actually works and someone hacks a bridge to Skype or some other VoIP provider. Since the price of an iPhone dropped to, roughly, the price of an iPod touch (16 GB iPod touch and 8 GB iPhone are priced at $399), wouldn’t that be about the same thing? I agree with Dave, however, it would have been much more elegant and radical and under-warranty had Apple done it.

In reality, for business purposes or many other reasons, some people will always want the stability and infrastructure of what an AT&T can bring to the iPhone. But for many, an iPhone/wifi might be a great alternative (for a $60 a month-savings trade-off).

Sidenote: On Twitter, @SteveRubel twitter.com/steverubel said that Apple was “horrifically rude” to drop the iPhone price $200 nine weeks after the launch. I responded, “We now know the market-value of nine weeks of iHipness.”

Google maps on the iPhone is incredibly useful. However, at times, there are things it just doesn’t map: like the New York subway system, for example. Hats off to Khoi Vinh for coming up with clever hack to solving this dilemma for someone like me, who uses the subway on my frequent visits to New York, but not enough to feel confident without having access to a map. Using an idea he learned from Mikd Essl, he’s created and is sharing a series of sectional screen-grabs of a New York subway map one can upload and use in iPhone’s Photo application. The thumbnail feature of the Photo application and the “surprising logical interaction” of the iPhone’s photo scanning features make the maps work. Not elegant, but, as Khoi says, “They’re the most awesome low-tech New York City subway maps for your iPhone that you can find anywhere.” One of his commentors has observed that the New York MTA has sent cease and desist orders to others who have messed with their maps, so, download Khoi’s photos fast.

Coolest feature: Provides an automagic, one-click way to dial up all of those Facebook friends.

Observation 1 (I know, I’m repeating myself): Don’t “friend” people who you don’t want to have the ability to have an automagic, one-click way to dail your phone number.

Observation 2: In my opinion, this is the best execution I’ve seen yet of a web-service optimized for the iPhone version of Safari.

More detail: Mashable.com

Later: No way is it as cool as iphone.facebook.com, but this is a clever marketing gimmick from a market niche that is infamous for its lack of clever marketing gimmicks: mobile.harpercollins.com.

The other day, I speculated-out-loud that Apple may have grounds to sue Universal for factors related to “restraint of trade” in not allowing DRM-free music to be sold via the iTunes store while opening up such an option to nearly all other online retailers of any heft. (I admitted — and still do — I have absolutely no knowledge of the law surrounding such an issue, but I do recall “restraint-of-trade” being a central-focus of legal and regulatory battles in the book-retailing industry whenever one channel of distribution appears to gain preferential treatment from publishers or wholesalers.)

However, after thinking about it some more and reading articles like this one in the LA Times that re-hash the conventional wisdom that Universal is using this as some type of warning-shot against Apple, I have thought about it some more and come to this conclusion: Why should Apple give a rip about how people purchase DRM-free music? They should be encouraging Universal to do this and hoping that Walmart, Best Buy and anyone else who can sell DRM-free music will be as successful as possible.

Why?

In reality, Apple doesn’t make that much money from selling music. I once wrote about 10,000 words pointing out how Apple’s podcasting strategy, in which they support the RSS-distributed delivery of what is, for the most part, free music and programming, is a winner for them because, duh, Apple is in the business of selling hardware that organizes and plays music — the “content” part of iTunes is not their business. I won’t repeat the economics of this, as I’ve covered it before, but believe me, the margin Apple earns on selling music is a microscopic fraction of the margin they earn on selling an iPod or iPhone.

In reality, Apple wants you to purchase DRM-free music any way you can. They are begging Universal to the throw them into the briar patch if they doth protest too much (to mix literary metaphors) Universal’s selling of DRM-free music through every other channel possible. Steve Jobs & Co. know that on iTunes, there is this little menu item called “Consolidate Your Library” that will automagically suck into iTunes all of that DRM-free music you purchase via other sources.

Steve Jobs & Co. know that in a few months, Universal will let them sell DRM-free music. Even I, who am observing this from so far away I have to squint, can see it is inevitable that Universal will cave-in on this after all of their “testing” is done.

As a Mac-user, one of the unanticipated pleasures of using an iPhone is hearing all the same alert sounds on the phone that I hear on my computer. For example, when I get new email on my iPhone, I’m alerted by the the same ping sound I hear on my Mac. And when I send e-mail, I hear the same swoosh sound as I hear on Apple mail.

Because of those — and other — things which seem so like my Mac, it seems all-the-more odd there is no iChat client on the iPhone. There are rumors of one in the pipeline and third-party browser hacks. But iChat needs to be a part of the iPhone sooner, rather than later. I can understand the economic incentive on AT&Ts part to prefer users us SMS rather than instant messaging, but there are many aspects of the iPhone that circumvent the cell-phone’s transaction-oriented business model (i.e., the complaints of no “picture mail” misses the point that it’s easy to use browser-based tools to send photos without requiring either party to pay for text-messaging charges).

Bottomline: Where’s my iChat?

Bonus link: Steve Rubel posts several ideas for making an iPhone an extension of ones computer — a “mobile nerve center,” he calls it. (Because I follow Steve on Twitter, I’ve been picking up these hints a little at a time over the past few days.)

Later: Om Malik finally breaks down and gets an iPhone and says it needs iChat — more than it needs YouTube. (However, I think the YouTube feature is rather fun and it’s the feature I first show to someone who’s under the age of 20.)

iSmoke: Don’t breathe it. And don’t watch this if you’re easily disturbed. And, remember kids, don’t try this at home.

While I typically depend on its RSS feed to deliver me the stories that hit the front page of Techmeme, I’ve been surfing by it for several days to see how long it will be before the page does not include the word iPhone. I’ve noticed it coming close, maybe just one mention in the “discussion excerpts” listings — but something will happen — say, Robert Scoble pointing to a funny iPhone video, for example — and bang, the word lingers for another 24 hours.

So, I thought I’d start a contest. In the comments of this post, please guess the day and hour that a page search of the front page (expanded view) of Techmeme will not include any result for the word iPhone. None whatsoever. (Believe me, I’m aware of the potential irony of this post making it to the front of Techmeme — but that will merely add to the need for you to guess well.)

There will be two winners to this contest:

1. The person who comes the closest to guessing the date and time.

2. The person who posts a link to the version of Techmeme’s front page that contains no mention of iPhone, none whatsoever. (You must select “show discussion excerpts” from the preferences to get the full view of the front page.)

In case of a tie, the first person to guess the winning date/time wins.

Oh. And one more thing: The prize for winning is not an iPhone — just bragging rights and a Hammock Publishing T-shirt.

A very short contest: An hour or so after posting this, I checked out Techmeme and guess what? — No iPhone. There is the inclusion of a Steve Gillmor word, iphonomics, but the word iPhone isn’t on the version of the front page I just linked to. As Dave was the only person to enter before the contest ended, he’s the winner of a really swell T-shirt.

David Pogue and those wild-and-crazy-guys over at NYTimes.com have produced a parody musical starring David and a bunch of folks waiting for iPhones. It’s enough to make me start believing Andrew Keen. (Actually, it’s funny.)

(Thanks, Liz)