Actually, I don’t believe the issues are legal. There are various DJ apps on the Mac that have iTunes library access, and have been for some time. I can imagine the reason being either control, technical (there’s something to that), or some combination.

As far as Google Android, I think it’s best not to see it as a direct competitor — there are lots of differences — but of course we’re looking at both. And it does appear that Android will improve over time. I know access to native code is something Google has promised, and already 1.5 SDK is a whole lot better for audio. Once you get native library access, in fact, an app that works on both Android and iPhone – with different code on the top level – should become more feasible. That’ll put further pressure on each to open up APIs, because, for instance, you could get features on Android not on iPhone as in this case (or visa versa).

Both platforms are really young, so I do hope all of this improves down the road.

It says Google is dropping the app *as distributor*.

But you can
a) download apps from other stores
b) download (and purchase, if you like) apps directly from the developer

Both without breaking any kind of legal restrictions on the device. It’s simply not so with the iPhone, which requires jailbreaking (a potentially illegal act) to purchase apps through any outlet other than Apple.

I think Google has done a poor job communicating on this, and I still don’t understand why carriers are opposed to tethering — why not just charge extra for it and use it as a valuable revenue source? You could even likely cap bandwidth consumption, as typical tethering users are going to want only light use.

But as a supposed counterexample of openness on Google Android, sorry, you’ve got it backwards entirely. It’s another illustration of the difference in distribution models. If you don’t like it here, you can go around Google, and that to me is the way it should be.

No, I think the main problem with Android remains a lack of greater developer *functionality* — the question of whether you can develop an app with the broad set of capabilities a Linux app might get, for instance — and the ongoing lack of handsets.

I agree that it really is a shame we can’t do everything we want (my pet grievance: why is it so hard to share data with your desktop Mac or other iPhones!), but today my glass feels half full :) and I’m looking forward to finding interesting ways to work within the boundaries imposed by the platform.

Legal problems – no way. The data is already in the audio buffer. And Apple isn’t providing simple playback controls. There’s no legal issue to a non-iTunes app playing a file already on the device.

Most importantly, on both counts these capabilities are already present in desktop software.

That said, to me these limitations *aren’t* actually deal-killers in the way some of the Android gaps are. There are still some amazing possibilities for iPhone apps that use other capabilities. Actually, even on the Android I could see some creative uses of just doing media playback. So, you know, developers will continue to do what’s possible. I just thought the misconception about this capability wasn’t necessarily productive.

I will leave it to your imagination what sort of legal impediments might get in the way of allowing access to content that is licensed for sale through iTunes for audio playback. Of course, those legal restrictions shouldn’t apply to your content, but infectious protectionism has been part of the rules of the game with the iPod since start of the iTunes Music Store.

But in the meantime, yeah, I’m a big fan of what’s available now and those apps specifically.

As to Adrian’s netbook comment, that means that for Android to be a compelling netbook OS as Google seems to hope, it is going to need more functionality along the lines of what you get developing for normal Linux distros.