What’s the killer app for the iPhone?  Most hardware platforms have had one:  the app so great you go buy the hardware just to get it.   But it occurred to me in a recent conversation:  there might not be a killer app for the iPhone (and it might not need one).

With the App Store, Apple’s done the expected exceptional job of app distribution, including enabling small dollar payments.  Can you name another mainstream system where you can seamlessly buy, install, and run $1 apps?  It’s no surprise the first batch of apps are “narrow apps”, that do one specific thing, (in most cases) do that thing well, and don’t cost much.

When combined with Springboard’s ability to customize the launch screen icon layout, it’s entirely possible that the “killer app” for each user is not a single distinct application, but a personalized selection of a dozen or so narrow apps chosen by that user.

In other words, the killer app for each user is a sort of “app mix tape”.

I wish operating systems had native document scanning support.

I bought a scanner years ago in an attempt to manage paper load:  scan to PDF, electronically file, and shred the original.   It’s a great feeling to find an important document electronically, instead of sorting through reams of paper (and then having to scan it).

I just want simple “scan to PDF” — why are the tools so bad?  The software supplied with my scanner stopped working one day (on Windows — it just went to permanent hourglass).  I gave up trying to fix it, and turned to the world of $20 scan-to-PDF applications, most of which are pretty crappy.

Am I missing some easy solution?

I remember the days when sound cards were add-ons:  driver hell, version conflicts, limited app support, etc.  Apple and Microsoft:  please provide bundled, well-designed, and well-integrated document scanning!

Compare Joost and Hulu.   Which one is more compelling?

Joost came out first, generated a bunch of buzz, and has a novel/interesting user interface. It’s also technically interesting, using peer-to-peer for distribution.

In contrast, Hulu came later and has a decent, sort-of-generic UI, but works entirely through the Web (no client, no peer-to-peer).

Why is Hulu so compelling?  It’s content:  they have stuff people actually want to watch.

Well this is interesting:

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts says it will become the first health insurer to participate in Google Health, a medical records initiative by the online search engine.(from this article).

(I’m an HMO Blue of MA subscriber.)

I’ve wondered for a while why, with all of the technology available, someone hasn’t finally figured out how to make health care and health insurance more efficient. Check this out to keep yourself fit.  (And I’m sorry to say that I’ve developed a small set of forms my family uses to streamline replies to incoming HMO paperwork).

I’ve got mixed feelings about Google handling medical records, but if they can help stop my HMO premiums from going up 10-25%/year, I’m interested in learning more. 

Well, I’ve now got three decent options for video on demand:  Hulu, iTunes movie rentals, and the Netflix/Roku set-top box (which just arrived a few days ago).  

Hulu is free, ad-supported, with mostly TV content.  Netflix’s “watch instantly” has old-run DVD content (movies and TV shows) with no ads, free for existing subscribers.  And iTunes has newer movies and content for a pay-per-view (err, “rental”) model.

I think we now officially have a competitive market for on-demand TV and movie content.

I’m starting to choose (or avoid) hotels based on the broadband speed.

Between Web apps (like Gmail) and streaming-only content (like Hulu), hotels with crappy bandwidth are downright painful.

Yesterday, I was at a gadget “demo day” with some friends and got a hands-on, up-close view of Apple TV and the Slingbox client running on a Windows Mobile phone.  This past weekend, my daughter got addicted to Hulu content on her EEE PC.

I’ve written before about IP video.  I keep repeating myself, but it feels like 2008 will be the tipping-point year for full-on IP video:  full-length, full-quality TV and movie content (not 10 minute clips at sub-NTSC quality).

The iPhone SDK party in Cambridge on Monday was a little disappointing.  It was much more networking than substantive content.  The iPhone store has a tough layout for large crowds + presenters.  Jonathan Zdziarski spoke about the genesis of the open SDK, but I think it’s pretty much dead given Apple’s official SDK release. There were a few demos, but if you’re relatively current on iPhone development, there was no new data.

But hats off to the organizers; there’s always risk in organizing events like this.  Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t.  

(But it was good to catch up with folks!  I saw:  Antonio Rodriguez, Beth Winkowski, Ted Morgan, Ryan Sarver, Daniel Cozza, Dan Slavin, Jeff Glass,  Michael Campbell, Dan Allen, Ajay Agarwal, John Keyes, and others.)

I’ve written before about the future of television being just a fat IP pipe into your house. “What’s cable TV, daddy?”

We’re another small step there with Hulu going public tomorrow, with a bunch of content. This could be the tipping point for the “classic” network content providers to do a good job with on-line delivery.

And they have Alfred Hitchcock.

In this post from Official Google Blog, David Drummond writes:

So Microsoft’s hostile bid for Yahoo! raises troubling questions. This is about more than simply a financial transaction, one company taking over another. It’s about preserving the underlying principles of the Internet: openness and innovation.

(from: Yahoo! and the future of the Internet)

While I appreciate Google’s openness (certainly relative to Microsoft’s historical behavior) and innovation,  I’m enthusiastically applauding any effort that challenges them.

Google’s building an on-line position of dominance not unlike Microsoft’s off-line monopoly.  And they’ve earned it:  they’ve executed well, they have good technology, they’re incredibly profitable, they’re hiring the best people, and they’re investing heavily in R&D.

But the system works best when there’s competition.  Yahoo and Microsoft certainly each have their issues, but anything that’s a threat to Google’s dominance…..it’s all good.