iPhone: Buy Now or Wait for 3G?

It's both newsworthy and completely unsurprising: AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson has confirmed that there will be an Apple iPhone with high-speed data next year. Combined with last month's news that Apple will open up the iPhone to third-party applications in February, that means that the two biggest limitations of the world's most interesting phone are set to go away next year.

As I blogged last year, I tried living with an iPhone and decided it wasn't the right phone for me. (Since that post, I've upgraded my phone--I now tote HTC's TyTN II, which is an unlocked variant of the AT&T Tilt.) I like my TyTN II and have no plans to dump it anytime soon, for an iPhone or anything else.

But what about folks who are currently contemplating an iPhone? Stephenson's leak begs the question: With a high-speed iPhone on the way, would it be a mistake to buy one with pokey EDGE data today?

My impulse would be to say yup, it would be. The iPhone's amazing Safari browser is fundamentally hamstrung by the phone's slow data connection--a 3G iPhone should be a dramatically more pleasing Internet device, and one that's worth waiting for.

It's more complicated than that, though. While a 3G iPhone's data speed will trounce that of the current model on paper, I want to try one out before I come to any conclusions about whether it feels that much faster. There are a lot of factors that impact how fast mobile browsers are beyond raw data speed, from rendering engines to latency issues; designing a robust 3G iPhone is going to involve a lot more than swapping out the EDGE radio for a 3G one.

Then there's battery life. Until now, Steve Jobs has been pointing to 3G's power-hungry ways as an argument in favor of iPhone's lack of high-speed data. It seems a good bet that Apple will figure out how to release a 3G phone whose battery life isn't radically worse than that of the current model, but we won't know for sure until it shows up.

Lastly, I know a lotta iPhone owners, and not all of them spend much time in Safari. High-speed data will have less impact on e-mail, and if you're itching to buy an iPhone but plan to use it mostly for voice calls, e-mail, and music, the current model's lack of 3G isn't a crippling flaw, and the next one's addition of it won't be a gigantic boon.

Me, I'm waiting for an iPhone with an improvement that has nothing to do with data speed or technical challenges of any sort: I've told myself I'll never buy another phone that forces me to sign up for a carrier contract. It's possible to sneak your way into a pay-as-you-go AT&T plan, but at a much higher cost per minute. What I really want is what iPhone buyers in France and Germany will get: The ability to pay more in the first place and avoid contractual obligations.

Okay, scratch that--the unlocked iPhone will be about a thousand bucks in France and $1500 in Germany. If it's true that it costs Apple $263.83 to make an iPhone, there's gotta be a way for it to sell us contract-free ones at a reasonable price and still make lots of money. Or am I the only contractphobe out there who isn't ready to spend a grand or more on a phone?

Zoho Takes Online Word Processing Offline

Adventnet, whose Zoho browser-based productivity apps make it the most interesting and industrious little company in the world of Web services, is rolling out an update to its Zoho Writer word processor today, and it's a biggie: The company has used the Google Gears extension for Firefox to let you edit documents in Zoho Writer even when you don't have a live Internet connection. (Zoho Writer has supported Gears since August, but until now, you've only been able to view documents when offline, not make changes.)

Once you've installed the Gears extension, taking Zoho offline is pretty simple. When you're ready to disconnect--say, because you're about to get on an airplane--click the "Go Offline" link above your document. Zoho will copy the document locally, and you'll be able to edit it, although not all features are available offline. (Preview mode is disabled, for instance, as are tools for exporting documents to different formats.) When you've regained connectivity, clicking "Go Online" will shuttle your edited document back to the Zoho servers.

I've tried offline editing enough to verify it works, but haven't yet taken any shared documents offline, so I'm not entirely sure how Zoho handles collaboration when offline editing is in the mix. Presumably, taking a document offline should prevent colleagues from editing it, so you don't end up with multiple versions of a file that can't be reconciled.

Zoho's productivity apps represent the most formidable competitor to Google's own Google Apps suite, and while Google's offerings trump Zoho's in some respects, Adventnet has a remarkable track record for rolling out new features before Google does. I'm dead certain that Google is working on a version of Google Docs that lets you edit word processing documents offline, but Zoho has this important feature right now--and it did it with Google's own Gears technology.

Here's a video from Adventnet that explains Zoho Writer's offline features.

5 Arguments For the Continued Viability of the Book

I take a lot of six-hour plane flights, and am usually reading multiple books at any given time. Which makes me an ideal target customer for Amazon's new Kindle e-book reader. Lugging even one hardcover book on a trip is a hassle; the Kindle can contain the equivalent of hundreds of 'em in a package that's slimmer than a typical paperback.

So I'm intrigued by the idea, at the very least--and plan to try the $399 EVDO-enabled Kindle out shortly to see just how good the reading experience is. (We'll also have a review up shortly by my colleague Melissa Perenson--who, like many people who have gotten their hands on the device, found both plenty to like and plenty to quibble about.)

Meanwhile, I've been ruminating on Steven Levy's long article about the Kindle in the current Newsweek. Actually, Levy's piece is only partly about the Kindle--it's about where digital technology could be taking books. Technology could put all the books ever written into one Kindle-like device; it could turn books from static, unchanging items into ones that are subject to continuous evolution; it could make them conversations rather than one-way transfers of ideas from author to reader.

Actually, I'm pretty positive that it'll do all these things, given time, since that scenario just isn't very distant from what the Web has done to information of all kinds in a little over a decade.

But thinking about how books might change has me thinking about all the ways I hope they never change--or at least, all the ways in which traditional old dead-tree books have an edge on e-books as they're likely to exist in the near future. After all...

They're the most customized containers for information ever. Like all e-book readers, the Kindle squeezes any book you load into it onto a screen whose dimensions can never change. And I understand that it supports only two typefaces. Ordinary books, by contrast, can be produced in whatever size best fits their content--so tiny they'll fit in a shirtpocket, or so mammoth that they occupy most of a coffee table. Whole categories of books, like collections of comic strips that need extra-wide, landscape-oriented pages, just won't work on an e-reader.

Same thing for typefaces--one of my favorite books, Walter Kerr's The Silent Clowns, on silent comedy, is set in a wonderfully old-timey, playful font; it simply wouldn't be as good a read on an e-book reader.

They're still the benchmark for reproduction of images. Neither the Kindle nor its closest competition, the Sony Reader, does color at all, since the high-contrast, battery-efficient e-ink technology they use doesn't support it. That's a striking limitation in a world in which even the cheapest cell phone has a color screen. There will, of course, be e-books with color screens at some point, but I'm not sure if there will ever be ones that can make art reproductions look as good as they do when they consist of ink on wood pulp.

Unidirectional is not a dirty word. I don't want anyone "improving" Picasso's Guernica. I think the works of Gilbert and Sullivan don't need extra music or new lyrics. And I want authors of both fiction and nonfiction to have the ability to write books that are 100% them, and which don't change unless they decide they should change.

I don't mean to sound like a fuddy-duddy--I'm thrilled by the interactivity that's inherent in the Web and which printed magazines can never duplicate. But magazines have always been about multiple voices; most of the greatest books ever written are one masterful voice saying exactly the things it wants to.

Books were meant to be shared. The Kindle is yet another electronic device that's hobbled by copy protection: You can't give a Kindle e-book as a gift, or lend it to a friend without lending them the Kindle itself. That takes a large chunk of the social aspect out of the reading experience.

But printed books effectively have the world's best copy protection--the fact they're physical prevents people from (easily) copying them, but doesn't stop anyone from lending them or giving them away. And me, I like giving books to friends almost as much as I like reading them. I like lending out favorites, too--as long as it's to someone who's likely to return 'em at some point.

Books are permanent, or as close to permanent as information gets. Want to read one that was published hundreds of years ago? The pages may be a bit yellowed, but the volume will be just as easy to access as it was the day it rolled off the printing press. Kindle books, however, come in a proprietary AZW format that works only on the Kindle, and which leaves you dependent on Amazon for content. If Amazon is in business four hundred years from now selling AZW books, it would be utterly extraordinary; if the Kindle is no more successful than previous e-books, it's possible that AZW won't be around just a few years from now.

I could go on, and I'm not even bothering with the obvious stuff, like the fact that a $10 paperback doesn't require a $400 investment to read it, or the printed word's amazing ability to work for indefinite periods without the need for any electrical power whatsoever.

It's a trite sentiment, but it's true: If we had only e-books and paper books were invented and released in late 2007, there's much about them that would be pretty darn amazing...

I'm Officially Intriguing

I'm pleased, humbled, and a little surprised to report that it was my honor today to accept an award from MIN Magazine as one of its 21 Most Intriguing People of the Year. MIN, which covers the print and online media biz, gave out the awards at an event at New York City's Tavern on the Green; among my fellow intriguing people were David Granger from Esquire, David Carey and Joanne Lipman from Conde Nast Portfolio, and Cliff Sloan, the publisher of Slate.

But the person I was most tickled to find there was the one I happened to sit next to through pure coincidence: David Bunnell, the founder of PC World, Macworld, PC Magazine, and a fair percentage of the other computer magazines that were ever successful. David was there to accept an award for his latest venture, Eldr--a magazine and site for health-conscious folks over sixty.

MIN presumably deemed me intriguing because of my adventures back in May. But as I said as I accepted the award, we're having fun at PC World exploring all the challenges and opportunities of making a venerable media brand vibrant and relevant during the biggest sea change the publishing world has ever seen.

These are, in other words, intriguing times to be an editor, period. I'm grateful for MIN's recognition, and always happy when PC World gets some time in the limelight--although, as I also said at today's lunch, it's really the rest of PCW's editorial staff that does almost all the heavy lifting...

One Laptop For a Child, One Laptop For Me

As my colleague Tom Spring reported this morning, the One Laptop Per Child foundation has kicked off its "Give One Get One" program, which allows folks to spend $423.95 (including shipping) to pay for two XO laptops (aka the "$100 laptop")--one for a deserving child in a developing nation, and one for "the child in your life." (The offer is available through November 26th at LaptopGiving.org.)

Earlier today, I plunked down my money via the LaptopGiving site, and in my case, the child in my life is...well, me. At least at first. I've written before of my desire to own a Firefox PC, and while the XO machine wasn't designed for comfortably well-off geeks, it is indeed an inexpensive, battery-efficient computing device that packs a Mozilla browser. I may eventually hand it off to a child, but I plan to live with it for awhile and report back here on the experience.

I think that OLPC's G1G1 offer, as the call it, is a clever way to let individuals help get some XO systems into the hands of kids in other nations, and I kind of suspect that they know darn well that some of the people who take advantage of it want that second machine for themselves. I wonder if I'll run into anybody else toting one around the Bay Area, or using one on a plane? I suspect that they'll be status symbols, at least for a spell, since this limited-time offer is the only way for individuals to acquire them.

LaptopGiving says that the deal is also a $200 tax writeoff, that being the $399 you pay (not counting shipping) minus fair market value of the XO that gets donated. Which confuses me a little bit since G1G1 purchasers in the U.S. also get a year's worth of free T-Mobile hotspot service, worth about $360. I'd think that the value of that freebie--which normally costs almost as much as both XO machines you pay for--would nullify the writeoff. But apparently I think wrong.

Anyhow, I didn't signup for G1G1 with tax time in mind. It'll be nice to know that some kid somewhere is using an XO I paid for...and I'll report back on my experiences with mine once it shows up. (OLPC says it'll try to get them out by holiday time, but it makes no promises.)

Video: Google Demos the Android Phone Platform

Little by little, we're learning more about Android, the new operating system for cell phones that's being rolled out by Google and the other members of the Open Handset Alliance. Today's the official announcement day for the Android SDK, the set of tools that developers will use to create Android applications, and the Android site has gone live.

Also today, Google sweetened the pot, saying it will give a total of $10 million to the developers who build the best Android apps.

Logically enough, the info on the site is mostly targeted at programmers, not folks who are excited about the prospect of the first Android-based phones showing up sometime next year. But here's a video in which Google cofounder Sergey Brin introduces a demo of a couple of Android concept phones. We see the Android browser, an instant messaging client, and Google Maps (including Street View), and get a glimpse of how they all work together:

Last year, the applications seen in this video would have been heady stuff. Watching it just now, though, my instinct was to think "Gee, that looks like a somewhat less polished version of the iPhone interface, providing iPhone-like functionality."

I'm sure that Google and its Open Handset Alliance partners would insist that to think of Android in terms of the applications and UI elements that exist today is to miss the point--and they'd probably be right. What makes Android interesting, and radically different from the iPhone, is its inherent openness. As a truly open platform, it'll be defined by the community that codes for it. And while we don't know anything about the iPhone SDK that Apple says will show up by February, there's no chance whatsoever that it'll give third parties the degree of control over the iPhone that Google says the Android SDK will provide for Android-based devices.

It's always smart to be skeptical about the notion of new platforms catching on like wildfire, and the fact that Google is behind Android doesn't make it a slamdunk. (Remember when Google Base was going to kill, or at least severely wound, eBay? Hasn't happened; never will.) But now that the SDK is public, we'll begin to hear what developers think of it. And as they start putting it through its paces, we should get a much better sense of the platform's potential, even before any phones show up...

The Undeniable Greatness of the Radio Shack TRS-80

I spent part of last weekend at the Vintage Computer Festival at the Computer History Museum down in Silicon Valley. And the highlight by far was a talk by David and Theresa Welsh, the authors of Priming the Pump, a relatively new book about Radio Shack's TRS-80 microcomputers and the world they spawned in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Yup, an entire book (348 pages!) on the subject. And it's about time. There are scads of books that delve into the founding of Apple; the first, Michael Moritz's The Little Kingdom, was published way back in 1984. There have even been a couple of books about Commodore and its pioneering PET and other machines, including Brian Bagnall's recent On the Edge. But the origins of the TRS-80, which debuted in 1977--at more or less the same times as the Apple II and PET--have gone largely unchronicled until now.

I've always taken that sort of personally, since the TRS-80 Model 1 was the first computer I used (my father brought one home in the Spring of 1978). Even during its heyday, using a Radio Shack computer was enough to give you an inferiority complex; they rarely got credit for being the most mass-marketed machines of their era. Apple II users treated us with such contempt--even though the TRS-80 likely sold better than the II, at least for a spell--that it's a wonder there were no "I'm an Apple II/I'm a TRS-80" commercials. And it's only been in recent years that I could hear the slander nickname "Trash-80" without my blood coming to an instant boil.

At the time I got into TRS-80s, it didn't seem like the dawn of a revolution. Actually, I kicked myself for not having learned about personal computers earlier--they'd been around for all of three years, and I felt like I'd missed out on the golden age. But there's a direct path from the TRS-80 era, as rinkydink as it seems in retrospect, to just about everything that makes up the world of personal technology circa late 2007.

Anyhow, Priming the Pump authors David and Theresa Welsh are part of the history they record in this book--David was the author of Lazy Writer, a word processor which I still remember. They managed to track down a number of significant TRS-80 players, including Steve Leininger (one of the machine's inventors), Wayne Green (founder of 80 Microcomputing magazine, the first computer magazine about a single platform--the template for magazines like PC World), and Dick Miller (who was the president of the TRS-80 user group I attended while a high school student in Weston, Massachusetts). The book is bursting with history, trivia, personal side notes from the Welshes, and scrapbook-like illustrations.

Reading it was a wonderfully nostalgic experience. If you ever sat in front of a TRS-80, pounding out Level II BASIC code on the notoriously bbouncy keyyboarrd and crossing your fingers as you saved your programs to the cassette recorder, you need this book...

Liveblog: Google's Open Handset Alliance Announcement

Okay, it's official: The Googlephone exists. Or doesn't, actually--but eventually, lots of Googlephones might. Google has announced the Open Handset Alliance, a group of thirty phone-related companies (including Motorola, HTC, Qualcomm, and T-Mobile) which have pledged support for a new cell phone platform called Android.

I'm sitting on hold as I write this for a conference call on all this to begin, and once it does, I'll begin reporting on what we learn...

And here we go.

Google communications VP Elliott Schrage is introducing Google's Eric Schmidt and Sergey Brin, plus honchos from other companies involved in the announcement. He's reading SEC boilerplate about forward-looking comments, blah blah blah.

Here's Eric Schmidt. He's very, very happy with this announcement.

Context: 3 billion mobile phone users in world, more than PCs or landlines.

Google has a two-point strategy: Apps like Google Maps on phones through handset partnerships.

Point two is a whole new mobile experience, which will come through Android. 33 companies are announcing this open platform, with an OS, middleware, user interface, and apps. It's being offered through the most open license.

It's incredibly important to say this isn't an announcement of a Gphone. They want lots of Android-based phones. Google thinks that the lack of a collaborative effort has made things tough.

The key challenge has been the UI--mobile development has been costly, but users want the same apps they know from the PC-based Web.

Android is unprecedented. It'll let mobile companies provide more flexible solutions for users, with cheaper and more compelling offerings. "Much much better" access to standard applications...

Rene Oberman, CEO of Deutsche Telecom (parent company of T-Mobile), takes over. He's saying that T-Mobile is committed to the Open Handset Alliance and to Android. It'll help users mobilize their social networks and mobile experience. They plan to release a T-Mobile Android device in 2008. The platform will allow for a "better-than-Internet" experience. Details will be disclosed in the coming months. Cool stuff is coming relating to user-generated content, social networking, and things that haven't been invented yet. Endless opportunity for engagement will be possible. Win-win for T-Mobile and its customers. OHA will propel T-Mobile's strategy. Thank you.

Here's HTC CEO Peter Chou, saying pretty much the same things that Oberman did. HTC and Google both want to give users new value through a compelling phone-based Internet experience. The Android platform will allow that. It's a good opportunity for HTC to expand its portfolio. First HTC Android phone will appear in second half of 2008, with more to follow. HTC is honored. Thank you.

Next up: Paul Jacobs, CEO of Qualcomm. He's pleased that T-Mobile is involved. Qualcomm has always been committed to innovation. Android will help deliver rich media experiences to users. Qualcomm has been working to make the platform happen and to make it work well with Qualcomm's industry-leading chipsets. An upcoming Qualcomm chip will be power-efficient and fast, with GPS and other cool features. Upcoming phones will incorporate CE and PC features, allowing for location, media, user-generated content, and social networking. Qualcomm is supported to technologies that support multiple carriers. The company has a long history of deep and lasting partnerships. They're enabling a new ecosystem with Google and others. They're looking forward to helping make it happen.

Here's Motorola CEO Ed Zander. He remembers when the PC came along a couple of decades ago. It's exciting that Motorola is part of this announcement. It's bigger than any one company--it's about open standards, open brands, etc. It'll deliver rich experiences faster than the market has done before with a rich portfolio of applications. Motorola has been a long-time leader. Closed development has stifled innovation. Collaboration will allow for a better way. And yes, Motorola is pleased to be part of this initiative to develop compelling and seamless experiences.

Here's Bill Wang of China Mobile. He's congratulating everybody. China Mobile is excited to be part of it. They believe that an open and advanced platform is key to delivering the best experience, and to widespread adoption of mobile phones in China. They share the vision of the Alliance. China Mobile has participated in past standards such as Vcast. It'll work with handset manufacturers to develop new phones to benefit its 340 million subscribers. Thanks to Google and Andy Rubin for developing this powerful platform. Good night from Beijing.

Google cofounder Sergey Brin has some thoughts: He's excited. A decade ago he was in an undergraduate cubicle, and was able to build incredible tools thanks to open standards like Linux, GNU, Python, and Apache. They let Google do great things and distribute them to the whole world. That's what we're looking at today--Android will let people innovate on mobile devices. And today's phones are more powerful than the "big iron" he used a decade ago. He can't wait to see what the next generation of innovators will do.

Questions from people on the call:

Will Android mean that handset developers in the OHA will no longer use other platforms? HTC's Chou says that it'll drive the whole industry to be more open, so it's not giving up other platforms. Motorola's Zander says it's been committed to open standards in the past with Linux. It has commitments to other companies, but the OHA ties into the open direction its wanted to go. Qualcomm's Jacobs says that OHA will "grow the pie" and that there's room for lots of competition.

Om Malik asks a question that's fuzzy on my phone--I can't make it out.

A question from Kevin Delaney of the Wall Street Journal: Will there be an ad-driven Google-branded phone? Andy Rubin of Google says that Android will deliver a desktop-like browsing experience, but he doesn't see an ad-supported Android phone.

Another question about the Gphone. Rubin says that the company isn't announcing a Gphone, but if such a phone were to exist, Android would be the perfect platform.

A question from Germany: Did Google ask companies like Microsoft, Apple and RIM to participate? If so, what did they say? Andy Rubin says that the OHA was designed to all kinds of companies could join. It's not a closed alliance, it's an open one.

Another question: Is this just for smartphones, or for entry-level phones, too? HTC's Chou gives a somewhat vague answer. "There's a lot more we can do in the future." Qualcomm's Jacobs says the company is working on chipsets that'll drive smartphones into the mass market under $200.

A question about how this stuff will be different from current phones. The Android platform has a full-power browser, so you won't have to shoehorn apps onto a phone. If they work well on the Web, they'll work well on your phone. Lots of implications there for games, social networking, video, and other categories.

A question about whether Android will allow for purely software-based phones, and the name "Android"--it feels lifeless. No plans for softphones. And the name Android came from Andy Rubin's startup which was acquired by Google.

Another Gphone question! Will there be one? Google isn't announcing one today, but if it did, Android would be the perfect platform. Think of the OHA as enabling thousands of Googlephones.

Questioner asks if that's a "no" to the Googlephone. "We're not announcing a Googlephone today.

A question about how the Android OS will relate to Linux. Andy Rubin says more technical details will come out within the next week. Is it Linux based? Yes.

A questioner notes that Eric Schmidt is on Apple's board. So why is Google doing a phone platform to compete with the iPhone. And will it be possible to build a device with a big screen and full keyboard? Schmidt says he's a happy iPhone user, and that many Android devices will do new things that nobody has done before. Andy Rubin says that Android needs a 200-mhz CPU, and is otherwise very flexible.

A question about ramping up the Android developer community. And will Android fragment things, since it's yet another platform to develop for? Andy Rubin says that unlike other platforms, Android is open. Eric Schmidt reiterates this point--anyone can modify it, and competitors can use it. The test will be whether developers and applications emerge. They're announcing the platform now to give developers a head start.

A question about the minimum set of capabilities for Android. Is there a baseline that carriers must support? Nope. People can do whatever they want with it.

A question from Reuters: How many phones with the new platform does T-Mobile expect to sell? It's too early to say.

PC Magazine asks a question: Will carriers be able to build locked-down, closed Android devices? Andy Rubin says to read the Apache software license. But yes, companies can build locked-down devices. Eric Schmidt says it's possible but unlikely they'll do so.

A question from Information Week about networks: How does this relate to Google's interest in the 700-MHz wireless spectrum auction? Eric Schmidt says they're two different initiatives. Android will run well on all networks.

New York Times asks a question: Google has been able to make money from ads without partnering with carriers. With the OHA change the dynamics and require Google to negotiate revenue-sharing deals for ads on content? How will it impact business models in general? Google is likely to want to do deals, since it'll result in a better ecosystem. Android doesn't require this, but it's highly likely it'll happen.

Question from the Daily Telegraph: The iPhone is coming out on Friday in the UK. Is this announcement an attempt to preempt excitement over it? Andy Rubin says that Android will enable innovation from many companies.

USA Today asks another Gphone question. He thinks that Google is leaving the door open for one. What's the deal? Google doesn't preannounce products, but it doesn't want to close any doors. A Gphone requires the right OS, developers, etc. Think of thousands of Android phones as giving you lots of choice.

Follow-up from USA Today: What does this mean for consumers? In the past, developers haven't had much access to mobile phones. Android gives them the opportunity to build for phones that'll ship in 2008. Google believes they'll build amazing stuff you've never thought of before.

Laptop Magazine asks Andy Rubin about the look and feel of the Android platform. What'll it be like? Rubin says it's amazing and top-notch. Stay tuned--when the SDK is announced in a week, we'll see more. They'll be soliciting input from the community on the UI. Google will provide hosted services to help developers distribute their stuff.

Final question, from Bloomberg. Is it a coincidence that Google announced the OpenSocial social networking platform last week and this one today? Will there be developer overlap? Schmidt says it's a coincidence, but OpenSocial apps will run extremely well on Android devices. They'll get the benefit of mobility.

And that's the conference call. Lots of potentially exciting news, tons of buzzwords, not much detail. More thoughts later--and I'd love to hear yours.

Surprise! MySpace Joins Google's OpenSocial Party

Yesterday, some pundits were dissing the social networks who were signing on to Google's OpenSocial application platform as a bunch of also-rans. Today, Google gave us a memorable Steve Jobsian "One more thing..." moment when it let loose that MySpace was also on board as a full parnter. (Bebo, another one of the planet's largest social networks, will apparently support OpenSocial, too.)

Okay, now that changes everything: With MySpace supporting OpenSocial, all those developers who are busy cranking out Facebook applications might quickly turn their attention to OpenSocial, which will let them create apps for the biggest social network and a bunch of others, too. I didn't wanna use the phrase "Facebook killer" yesterday when discussing OpenSocial, but it's more plausible today.

Or maybe not--it's always foolish to assume that just because a new Web idea has impressive backing that it'll catch on. (I'm remembering when Microsoft, Excite, Lycos, and other Web 1.0 titans teamed up to kill eBay--and couldn't even give it a flesh wound.) Everyone who's jazzed about OpenSocial (and I include myself in that group) should wait until the apps show up before pronouncing Facebook in dire peril.

(For one thing, everyone who's built up a large network of pals on Facebook will have lots of reason to continue to hang out there--especially since there's no way to transfer that network to any other site. I'm not on MySpace, Bebo, Plaxo, or Friendster, and it'll take some nifty apps that aren't available on Facebook to get me to consider making the move.)

But like I said, I'm excited. Google might be doing this in part to slap down Facebook--the company's motto is "Don't be evil," not "Don't have ulterior motives"--but open and widely-adopted is nearly always better than closed and proprietary.

And hey, it certainly upgrades my impression of MySpace in multiple ways that it's going from not being a true platform at all to becoming a rather open one, if its support for OpenSocial pans out the way it should in theory.