I just watched the pilot episode of Journeyman, a new NBC prime-time show. I’m intrigued enough by the premise to watch the next episode, although I’m still a little confused about what was going on in some scenes — what was up with the fiancée, was she also a time traveller? — so I’ll have to watch it again to try to make some sense of it.

But Dan, the protagonist, uses an iPhone throughout the show. (You know he’s travelled back in time because his iPhone loses service — guess they didn’t even have EDGE back in the 80’s.) Is this the first use of an iPhone in TV/movies? I don’t watch too much TV, so I wouldn’t know if they slipped it into any other premieres.

It looks like they messed with the software, though, and in one scene, the whole screen image is upside-down. Uh-oh, wonder if the firmware upgrade is going to brick his iPhone?

Daring Fireball calls out Apple on their new support for ringtones in iTunes 7.4:

Faced with the choice between doing what’s right for customers or charging them money for something they shouldn’t need to pay for, Apple chose the latter. There is no middle ground. And any business that hinges on your customers “not knowing any better” is a bad business.

Considering how the music labels obviously get to make the call on whether songs are even available to be made into ringtones, I’m assuming that this wasn’t Apple’s decision to make. Since the labels get the majority of iTunes revenues for each sale, it doesn’t seem like there’s anything in it for Apple to cripple the ringtone ability in this way. It seems more likely that Apple’s choice was have ringtones on the labels’ terms or not have ringtones at all.

As everyone interested knows by now, Steve Jobs posted an open letter promising a $100 store credit to anyone who bought an iPhone at its original purchase prices of $499 and $599.

Classy move by Apple, but I still maintain that the company had no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to do this. It’s clearly a smart move from a PR standpoint; they don’t want the backlash from early adopters to start getting mass-media coverage and distract from their new product rollout. What’s a shame is that so many early adopters threatened to create that backlash. Do everyone a favor and sit out the next time a new product is released.

Boy, if you want to wade through threads and threads of pathetic whining, check out the Apple iPhone support discussion group this morning.

There’s talk about how Apple has taken advantage of their customers’ loyalty, and even more ridiculous talk about class-action lawsuits.  Since when is dropping the price, even this far and this fast, against the law?   John Gruber said it best; this is simple supply and demand.  Apple knew they were sitting on an incredibly desired, anticipated product, and knew they wouldn’t be able to ramp up supply for a couple of months.  Their expenses were doubtlessly higher during the supply ramp-up stage too.  If they could sell out of them at $599, why would they sell them for $399?

There are people in the support forums claiming that they’d have been happy if only the price cut had waited 6 months instead of two.  Why?  What possible sense does that make?  Apple should have cut the iPhone price right after the holiday season?  That extra four months of exclusivity would have made the $200 worth it?  Please.

No one was tricked into paying $599 for an iPhone — they were delighted to, even waiting in line to buy a product that, let’s face it, is a toy.  No one needs an iPhone.  This isn’t like price gouging people for groceries and gasoline during a hurricane.  Apple should be charging exactly what it can get for its products and no less — after all, if you’re a fan of Apple products, you should want to see them succeed and make money so they can reinvest it into making even better products.

The Unofficial Apple Weblog (and others) are running stories today about how iTunes contains localization strings that “confirm” that games are coming to iPhone:

This basically confirms that Apple is bringing games to the iPhone. The only question, however, is: Which games? Are we going to get more Sims Bowling (ugh), or will Apple’s new friends at id actually hook them up with something cool?

Didn’t we have this conversation back in February when iTunes 7.1 was released for Apple TV? As Dan Moren at MacUser put it back then:

Really, the only thing this proves is that the developer in charge of updating the strings knows how to use copy/paste and find/replace. Sure, Apple might decide to bring games to the Apple TV someday, but when that day comes, they’ll be shouting that feature from the rooftops, not hiding it in a text file.

Same thing with iPhone. Not that I’m saying we won’t ever have games for iPhone — probably we will — but localization strings aren’t evidence of anything.

After last week’s filing of a frivolous iPhone battery-related lawsuit, we hear another voice of stupidity on the subject, this time from the New York State Consumer Protection Board (courtesy of WCBS TV):

In a letter to Apple CEO Steve Jobs, Bockstein addressed the major complaints voiced by frustrated consumers. “Consumers should not have to pay a $79 fee to replace the battery in an iPhone,” she wrote.

One solution she proposed would be a redesign to allow a consumer to replace the battery instead of having to send away for a new power supply.

Note to whiners and government bureaucrats: no one is forcing people to buy an iPhone. If you want a replaceable battery, there is something like seven gazillion other options. I’m sure Apple appreciates design advice from the New York State Consumer Protection Board, by the way — certainly the battery issue never even crossed their mind until the CPB came up this idea.

If you want an iPhone, lack of a replaceable battery is one of the trade-offs you have to put up with, like EDGE data service and the inability to edit Word documents. If you don’t like that, then make a stand with your wallet: don’t buy one. Courts and consumer protection boards shouldn’t be dictating feature trade-offs, especially in a case like this, where there is no unfair monopoly exploiting consumers because they have no other choices. This is a market with tons of choices.