Yesterday, Apple announced that the Wi-Fi-only iPad will ship in the U.S. on April 3, the Wi-Fi + 3G version shipping in the U.S. later that month. The iPad will ship outside the U.S. in late April as well. Apple also announced that they will begin accepting pre-orders for both versions on March 12.

Peter Misek made waves early this week when he said that the iPad was delayed due to hardware issues. However, Peter Misek is the same analyst that said that Apple was going to reveal an iPhone for Verizon’s network at their January event. Obviously he was full of it with that prediction and I would guess he was with this one as well.

The iPad was said to be shipping 60 days after the announcement on January 27 but John Gruber has been told by a source of his that the delay was because the software just wasn’t going to be ready in time.

John Gruber regarding the delay:

My sources suggest that Misek is wrong. It was the software, not the hardware, that took a week or two longer to finish than they’d hoped. Nothing extraordinary or unusual, just the usual hard-to-predict timing of turning software that’s almost ready to ship into software that’s ready to ship. In the grand history of major OS release date slips, one week is pretty tame.

I completely agree.

But, this is about the time in the conversation where people mention that the iPad won’t be available outside the U.S. until the end of April. Apple did originally plan to ship the iPad internationally on day one but I believe that this delay didn’t have anything to do with manufacturing delays per se but instead because of higher than expected demand in the U.S.

I do think that Apple expected a high interest in the announcement but I don’t think they expected quite as many people to acutally plan on purchasing it. According to an RBC/ChangeWave survey (reported on by All Things Digital) the iPad is in higher demand than the iPhone was before its launch. I think Apple was caught a little off guard by these numbers, and therefore didn’t have the manufacturing capacity at a point where shipping it in and outside of the U.S. simultaneously was feasible. I’m sure they could have done it if they expected this type of demand, but the decision would have had to have been made weeks (or maybe even months) ago.

Apple is looking to hire a full time engineering manager to help bring iPhone OS to new platforms.

From the Job description:

The Core Platform team within Apple’s Core OS organization is looking for a talented and inspired manager to lead a team focused on bring-up of iPhone OS on new platforms.

My first guess would be an iPod nano-like device using a modified version of iPhone OS. I’m obviously pulling that out of thin air but I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple wanted to simplify development of their mobile devices by running the same OS on all of them.

Peter Kafka:

Hulu and its owners, three of the big broadcast TV networks, want to bring some version of the Web video service to Apple’s device. But the most likely scenario is one in which access to Hulu on the iPad comes as part of a subscription package, multiple people familiar with the company tell me.

The problem is that if Hulu decides to define the iPad as a mobile device they would need to be granted the rights to display content on mobile devices. This is doable, but it’s the same kind of ridiculous red tape that forced Boxee to remove Hulu from their app and it’s the same kind of red tape that will put TV networks in the same position the music industry is in.

I have no doubt that a paid subscriptions service could work well for Hulu. But (even though it will never happen), I really wish Hulu would use HTML5 for their web site and publish videos in H.264 using the video tag.

From Google’s Official Blog:

Today, we’re excited to announce that Google has acquired Picnik, one of the first sites to bring photo editing to the cloud. Using Picnik, you can crop, do touch-ups and add cool effects to your photos, all without leaving your web browser.

This should come as no surprise to anyone. Picasa Web Albums has fallen behind in terms of features when compared to other photo sharing sites. This was just an easy way for Google to get Picasa on par with the competition. Unfortunately for Google, I don’t think this is going to be enough to convince people to make the switch.

Craig Grannel reports on Cult of Mac that an “Explicit” section briefly appeared last week as an option for developers submitting new apps in iTunesConnect.

The category never appeared in the App Store but this is a clear sign that Apple is attempting to calm complaints and most likely re-accept some of the applications that it removed in last months purge.

I wouldn’t mind seeing an Explicit section in the App Store. But, I would hope that applications in that section would be hidden from search and the top charts until the user turns the explicit section on in iTune’s settings.

Ian Fette writing in the Gears API Blog:

If you’ve wondered why there haven’t been many Gears releases or posts on the Gears blog lately, it’s because we’ve shifted our effort towards bringing all of the Gears capabilities into web standards like HTML5. […] We will not be investing resources in active development of new features. Likewise, there are some platforms that would require a significant engineering effort to support due to large architectural changes.

Gears will not be supported in Safari for Snow Leopard or later, and they currently plan to support Firefox and Internet Explorer moving forward.

I was really excited about Google Gears when it was first announced back in 2007. But, it’s a different world now, HTML5 is the future and I’m glad the folks at Google are smart enough to admit it. I don’t expect Gears to stick around for too much longer.

Apple hasn’t really been in good standing with developers as of late. But, this recent removal of 5,000 or so sexually explicit applications is especially troublesome. I’m still unsure as to how I really feel about whether or not the applications should have been in the App Store to begin with. I tend to lean towards no, however I think a better compromise would be to keep the apps in the App Store but only allow them to be accessed via direct links from with your web browser. But beyond that, it worries me that Apple is willing to remove applications in such large quantities on a whim.

It must be terribly unsettling (to say the least) that a developer can have an application in the App Store for nearly a year and a half only to wake up to an email informing them that it has been removed.

We’re not just talking about people developing applications in their spare time and making a little extra money while continuing to have day jobs, at this stage in the game there are more and more developers making a full-time income from the App Store. This isn’t just Apple pulling the plug on these developer’s applications, this is Apple completely removing their entire income and their ability to pay their bills.

If I was a developer with an application in the App Store, regardless of it’s subject matter, I would be incredibly concerned with the way Apple treats the developers that have made the App Store as successful as it is.

John Gruber puts it best:

What developers see is that the App Store is a shaky foundation upon which to build a business. One day you’re prospering, the next day your app is gone. There are awesome iPhone OS apps that aren’t being built because developers don’t trust Apple not to yank the carpet out from underneath them.

Apple appears to have a little more leverage than originally thought in regards to e-book pricing in the iBookstore.

Motoko Rich writes the following for the New York Times:

according to at least three people with knowledge of the discussions, who spoke anonymously because of the confidentiality of the talks, Apple inserted provisions requiring publishers to discount e-book prices on best sellers — so that $12.99-to-$14.99 range was merely a ceiling; prices for some titles could be lower, even as low as Amazon’s $9.99.

What this means is that if a book is released to the iBookstore at $14.99, if that book hits one of the best-seller lists it would be discounted to $12.99 or less.

From Neven Mrgan’s tumbl:

In landscape orientation, anything between 4:3 and 2.39:1 feels natural to humans. Now switch to portrait – 16:9 feels pretty weird. […] Every aspect ratio is a compromise. If a device is ever to be used in portrait mode – and my guess is that people will use the iPad in this book-like mode most of the time – that compromise must result in something closer to 4:3.

Neven has published an image of what the iPad would look like in 16:9. I can’t imagine Apple designing anything that looks this silly.

I’ve watched a few demos of Microsoft’s newly announced Windows Phone 7 Series and while I’m glad that Microsoft finally did something new, I’m not sure how I feel about the actual design of the software.

I’m glad that they finally decided to break backwards compatibility, especially since (whether Microsoft knows it or not) Windows Mobile died years ago. The lack of backwards compatibility might be the kick in the pants Windows Mobile developers needed to build better applications. Nothing helps developers build great software than an interesting platform to write for and this is certainly an interesting platform.

The most striking difference between Windows Mobile and Phone 7 Series is the home screen which uses tiles. I don’t really like the home screen as it doesn’t seem to fit with the design of the applications. While the home screen clearly indicates what can and can’t be tapped making use of the tiles, the typographic interface of the applications themselves doesn’t really differentiate between tappable, un-tappable, and swipe-able text with any type of visual cue.

I haven’t actually used the device and the experience could be completely different once I get my hands on it, but I don’t see the interface as being very inviting to use. It looks like it was designed as something to look at, but not something to interact with.

I’m happy that Microsoft finally built in Zune integration, but this is a predictable move, and I can’t imagine the amount of complaining that would occur if Microsoft didn’t build in Zune integration. Windows Mobile has never really had a great Microsoft-built desktop syncing interface and I hope that the Zune software will be that software.

Microsoft has been very hush hush regarding multi-tasking for this platform. The rumor is that Windows Phone 7 Series won’t have “true” multi-tasking, instead implementing it similarly to how Apple does. In other words, if there is multi-tasking it will likely only be enabled on the music app, email app, and a few other default apps.

One of the most interesting aspects of this announcement is that Microsoft will be setting minimum specs for handsets. This isn’t something Microsoft has really done in the past and will certainly help push the platform to where it needs to be. Microsoft will be dictating the aspect ratio of displays, Wi-Fi is required, AGPS is required, along with standards on what buttons you must have. My first worry here is that every manufacturer will be building essentially the same device. Competing based on price is exactly what’s plaguing the PC market — I don’t think this is the direction Microsoft needs to be going if they expect there to be any innovation. However, I might be eating my words if Microsoft continues to raise the minimum requirements of handsets and somehow manages to keep people interested with further software updates. I’m weary of these types of requirements but they could end up being a blessing in disguise (no matter how much handset makers hate them).

I think Microsoft did exactly what they needed to do in order to breathe new life into their stale mobile division. This is what Microsoft should have done years ago. It’s unfortunate that it took Apple and Google jumping into the cell phone game for Microsoft to finally do this. Microsoft is a software company filled with really smart developers — sometimes I just can’t understand why they’re unwilling to innovate unless someone else is beating them to the punch. It’s almost as if Microsoft can’t actually get anything done unless there is a sense of urgency.