On edge my old iPhone lasted 4-5 hours constantly on IRC. I can't even sporadically browse that long on a browser on many 3G phones, not just the iPhone but also the likes of the samsung blackjack and the htc/at&t tilt. There is no way in hell I would be able to stay on IRC for a reasonable amount of time with that kind of battery suckage.

I appreciate some aspects of the push notification service Apple is willing to provide, but I disagree with some of them, and obviously for others they would not work (ugh, again, IRC).

Also, I might note that a lot of these limitations put in place by Apple may be moot with the jailbreak (which I know many users would be reluctant to do, but if you were a hacker willing to deal with the possible consequences in exchange for having a slightly more open device, it's worth thinking about).

However: The decision on how to use that limited battery-time should be mine to make, and certainly not left to a phone-manufacturer trying to protect their own image.

I don't disagree with you, truth be told my first app idea for the iPhone became an impossibility when I heard about that background limitation. But I can sort of get why Apple wants to do that.

Microsoft beats Apple at all points here. I have no experience with Symbian development, but a quick google seems to imply that their platform is as open as Microsoft's.

I'm not saying Windows Mobile is flawless or that Microsoft are saints, but I fail to see why people constantly are cheering or apologizing for Apple when they are clearly overstepping their bounds in the name of a "it just works" image-based egotrip.

Just saying, this could be Apple being stupid and malicious, or it could be Apple wandering into new territory (for them).

I'm hoping situations change in the coming years, but I mean, I really wish people would put a little perspective into this..."Windows Mobile has this, has that! iPhone doesn't!" well, what if you gave it some more time? Good apps and know-how don't just appear out of thin air, it stems from experience.

What Apple is doing here is trying to keep the "good apps" in house and under their control so they can capitalize on it (and make it a selling point), instead of developers out on the free market.

Have you seen the apps on the app store? Half are complete trash. Maybe like 5% are awesome and worth using. The rest are mediocre (and on a sidenote, I think those percentages apply to applications in general anyway). Outside of the ones that violate the terms set by Apple/AT&T, I don't really want to know what the hell kinds of applications Apple is rejecting...or what it would be like if it was a complete free-for-all instead of having a "tax" of the $99/year fee.

This is not even beginning on touching on the developer issues outside of the NDA, like actually getting apps/updates accepted to the store itself (it's definitely not Apple being picky, they just seem massively backlogged).

I'm hoping this is just growing pains from Apple just starting out, but you never know...it's only been a few months, I'm going to give it some more time. (Also, everyone who knows other people who are definitely in the program aren't stopping from talking about it e.g. during wwdc, which was a good thing but...eh.)

What I mostly meant by my statement was that they are keeping expertice and experience in house, while rejecting the rest of the developer community the same thing.

It has the net effect of what I said, but if this is a "evil", intentional master-plan or just a side-effect of other policies... Time will tell.

Regardless, Apple can't keep on doing this, there are lots of entities who are wanting the NDA gone, not just the app developers. It's in their best interests to do so, and I will be shocked if they keep it for much longer.