Yesterday’s Apple event didn’t draw gasps of amazement of the good kind. Some great announcements were made (app management in iTunes 9, a cheaper iPod touch, a camera in the iPod nano), but the biggest surprise was the lack of a camera in the iPod touch.

This strikes a lot of people as crazy, but from yesterday’s event it’s pretty clear that Apple is aiming to differentiate each of its devices in a very clear way, rather than in the old days where everything played music and perhaps did a couple of extra things not particularly well.

The iPod shuffle is the truly mobile device, aimed at people who don’t care what they’re listening to, and don’t want any weight to carry around.

The iPod nano has been repositioned as a device to smack Flip with, due to bundling a VGA camcorder, but in a device much thinner than its rival.

The iPod touch, judging by the fact a quarter of yesterday’s announcement was about gaming, is now positioned as a handheld videogames device—Apple’s answer to the DSi and PSP Go. I still feel that the device’s name is a massive hindrance to true mass-market acceptance, but with 21,000+ games on the App Store, it’s clear where developers think the money is.

The iPod classic remains the player for people who must have every tune available at all times, under pain of death.

The iPhone is the device that mashes everything together in a profitable package for Apple.

Despite this desire to differentiate individual devices (presumably to encourage people to buy more of them rather than concentrate on convergence), it still seems odd that iPod touches lack a camera. Jobs argues in an interview with David Pogue that iPod touch is “the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that’s the big draw”. He says Apple was focused on “just reducing the price to $199 […] to get the price down where everyone can afford it”.

I suspect in the medium term, there will be an about-face on the camera decision, not least when you consider Jobs goes on to say in response to Amazon’s Kindle: “General-purpose devices will win the day [because] people just probably aren’t willing to pay for a dedicated device.” Right now, iPhone is the only truly general-purpose device; iPod touch is close, but really needs that camera to have the widest appeal and scope.

But next year will see flash memory reduce in price to the point that the iPod classic becomes irrelevant next to a 128 GB iPod touch. At that point, it’ll be a no-brainer to add a camera at least to the more expensive models in the iPod touch range, perhaps leaving the low-end without a camera, intended as a cheap gaming device to continue attacking Apple’s newfound handheld-oriented rivals.

Spotify is a great service, enabling you to use a desktop client to listen to the music you want to hear. Although the desktop Spotify client is basic, it’s simple to set up playlists that include every album a band’s made, or to import tracks from playlists made by friends. Depending on your musical requirements, you can use the service to trial albums prior to purchase, or to effectively create a fully personalised radio station that’s far more specific than the somewhat random tracks spat out by the likes of last.fm.

Despite the simplicity of Spotify, there are things a lot of people (including, sadly, many journos) still don’t get.

Free isn’t necessarily a good thing

Getting all the music you want for free is great. Spotify’s audio quality of roughly 160kb/s is reasonable and the majority of listeners won’t notice that it’s inferior to CDs. However, money has to come from somewhere, because Spotify must pay IP owners when tracks are played. Spotify makes money from the free desktop client via infrequent advertising that pops up every few tracks, and many ads encourage you to ‘upgrade’ to the ad-free ‘Premium’ service (which also has higher sound quality).

Rumblings from the rumour mill suggest this isn’t Spotify trying to gouge money from consumers, but that it’s increasingly an utterly essential component of its business model. With advertising being hard to come by in the current financial climate and Spotify’s payments rapidly increasing as the service becomes more popular, premium accounts will soon become vital for the company’s very survival. The problem is in convincing users to pay £9.99 per month when the free service is so compelling.

Spotify’s expansion is hugely tactical

With Spotify’s recent appearance on mobile devices, many people in the USA are questioning why the service is European-only (not realising that the service is actually only available in just six countries—not the whole of Europe). This is in part down to Americans not being used to technology moving in that direction—for example, iTunes and Amazon music download services started in the US and months later ventured into other territories.

The availability of Spotify is down to three things: the company’s origins, licensing issues and the size of the market. Spotify originated in Sweden, hence local knowledge led to it being available in a trio of Scandinavian countries. The other three countries where Spotify is available—the United Kingdom, France and Spain—were almost certainly targeted due to the size of their markets and existing interest in digital downloads. In other words, Spotify went where the money was likely to be.

There’s no doubt that the USA is the next major target. In fact, the company’s survival—or at the very least any further expansion—will likely hinge on it getting a foothold in the US, and while smaller European countries may eventually get the service, I doubt they’re a current priority (with the probable exception of Germany).

The mobile apps are carrots, not extensions of the existing service

Spotify arrived recently for iPhone/iPod touch and Android. Plenty of people are already complaining that the mobile clients work very differently to the desktop client, and are twinned with a premium account. This isn’t accidental, nor should anyone expect this to change any time soon. As already mentioned, Spotify needs revenue, and so the mobile applications are specifically there to drive more users to subscribe, not merely as a mobile extension of the existing service. (That said, Spotify would do well to provide a limited demo or ‘lite’ version, because that would almost certainly encourage more users with Apple and Android handhelds to upgrade.)

Apple didn’t care about Spotify because it’s not competition

The more I learned about Spotify’s plans in the mobile space, the less I thought Apple would reject the app during App Store review. Fundamentally, Spotify isn’t competition for iTunes. Apple’s store is based around a seriously mass-market download model, largely concentrating on impulse-oriented single-track downloads. Spotify is currently a mobile service that is hugely limited, only usable by a tiny fraction of people with Apple devices.

If Apple had rejected the application, I suspect it would have been in ‘accidental’ fashion (like Tweetie, C64 and Start Mobile Wallpaper Gallery) and it would have subsequently been rush-approved via expedited review. And even if Spotify goes crazy and releases a free version to mobile (thereby screwing up its revenue model), the app is still effectively a radio (albeit a very personalised one) versus a storefront.

One of the reasons I like Mac OS X on Intel is because it provides the best of all worlds for a web designer. You use a Mac to build and test stuff, get a built-in Apache server, and you can run Windows—in a window.

However, if you want to run multiple websites and also test them in the virtual machine, you have to jump through some hoops. They’re not very difficult hoops, but if you’re not hugely technically minded, it pays to have some advice. So, here’s how I got everything up and running on my new Mac earlier today. Note that I’m using Windows XP and so your mileage may vary for other flavours of Windows.

1. Create folders within ~/Sites and bung your websites in them.
2. Install VirtualHostX. This $19 app saves faffing about with your Mac hosts file, doing the heavy lifting for you. For each site, click ‘Add Host’, type in a domain (such as reverttosaved.site) and define a local path (as in, the relevant folder within ~/Sites).
3. Click ‘Apply Changes’ and VirtualHostX will do its thing. At this point, you should be able to view multiple sites in Mac browsers, using the defined domain names.
4. Open System Preferences, click Sharing and make a note of the IP address under ‘your computer’s website’.
5. Launch VMware Fusion and ensure it uses bridged networking for your VM. (Virtual Machine > Settings > ‘Connect directly to the physical network’.)
6. Go to C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc and open the hosts file in Notepad.
7. For each domain, type the IP address from step 4, then a space or tab, and then the domain (e.g. 192.000.1.99 www.reverttosaved.site) on its own line. Save the hosts file.
8. Go to Start > Run, type cmd to open a command-line window. Type ipconfig /flushdns to flush the DNS resolver cache.
9. You should now be able to access your domains via browsers in your Windows VM. Note that steps 6 through 8 need repeating for any additions to VirtualHostX, so it’s worth sticking a shortcut to hosts on your Windows desktop.

All this might be obvious to you, in which case, well done, Mr Geeky Pants. For me, it was a little journey of discovery, and so I hope this quickfire tutorial might help you if you’re not used to mucking about with hosts files.

So there I was at the cinema yesterday, bracing myself for a hateful YOU WOULDN’T STEAL A BABY’S RATTLE AND THEN USE THE RATTLE TO KILL A POLICEMAN AND STEAL HIS CAR AND THEN USE THAT CAR TO RAM-RAID THE TOWER OF LONDON AND STEAL THE CROWN JEWELS advert, offering a typically slimy, inaccurate representation of reality and law, trying to create an analogy with film bootlegging, when, surprisingly, it didn’t happen.

Instead, I got Martin Freeman affably thanking me for coming to the cinema and asking nicely if I’d perhaps let the staff know if someone was ‘camcordering’ the movie, because, really, that’s not a very nice thing to do, is it?

Aside from the idiot copywriter who decided that ‘camcorder’ could be used as a verb (nous camcordon, vous camcordez), this was a pretty good ad, and, in a tip to irony corner, far more persuasive than the braindead YOU WOULDN’T STEAL legalese crap cinemas have been shoving down our throats for the past few years.

So, please take this across to DVD ville, rather than that moron ironmonger, and make it skippable, and then I won’t hate you, media producers.

O2’s been criticised for treating iPhone users with contracts like everyone else and forcing them to honour said contracts or buy them out. With O2 having set a precedent on the move from the original iPhone to 3G, I have some sympathy with user expectations not being met, but understand O2’s reasoning. However, my experience over the last week in the Pay & Go space (and, frankly, O2’s now very regular network outages) has removed any lingering doubt that the company needs a slap.

My story begins last year, and ends with some ‘O2 stupid’. Last year, I bought a 3G iPhone on Pay & Go, because I make few calls via mobile and figured it’d be cheaper in the long run. Prior to the Pay & Go pricing becoming official, I noted how it went up by £60, but O2 added an extra six months of internet bolt-on. Essentially, O2 got more money up front and presumably hoped you’d not use the bolt-on that much, thereby generating more profits per Pay & Go device. As a consumer, this made no odds to me, since I’d be buying the bolt-on anyway. However, I had, as far as I was concerned, paid up front for 12 months of usage.

Clearly, though, I’m a total idiot. I assumed I’d be able to retain remaining bolt-on time in some manner when transferring the phone. I’m in the market for a Pay & Go 3GS and plan to give the 3G to my wife. Surely, I thought, I’d get to keep my remaining time or transfer it?

My first email to O2 revealed that bolt-ons are tied directly to SIM cards. I was told that I could buy a 3GS and my wife would have my remaining internet time on the 3G. Something in the curt nature of the email started alarm bells ringing, and so I asked for further clarification regarding transferring numbers, and a rather large snag became apparent:

“If you buy a new iPhone and transfer your existing number on the new SIM card your current SIM card will be permanently disconnected,” said O2. “If this happens we won’t be able to transfer the free Bolt On to your new SIM card. Also you wife won’t be able to transfer her number to this SIM card.”

O2’s wonderful suggestion to me is this:

“I would suggest that you wait until the free Bolt On gets ended and then buy the new iPhone.”

It seems O2 is treating the bolt-on as a freebie that the company gives you when you buy an iPhone because O2 is made of fluffy bunnies, and not because it’s bundled into the device’s price, and not because you’ve actually paid real cash money for it. My assumption is also that I’ll have to—for no good reason—buy a new SIM for the 3G so that my wife can use it, or just jailbreak the phone (which I don’t want to do).

I’ve got three months left on my bolt-on. I’m now hoping the rumours are true and the announcement of the end of O2’s iPhone monopoly comes around that point, because its Pay & Go attitude strikes me as unbelievably dumb and has really rubbed me up the wrong way.