Apple has a serious downfall when it comes to their iphone and software development kit or sdk for those in the know. The problem with the ingenious design is the fact that the “apps” are only accessible once the app is approved by Apple and designated.

Don’t even get me started on the Google Voice fiasco that just happened and landed Apple in some hot water with the FCC….

Now the iphone application store has rejected a new application because the application allows the reading of the Karma Sutra. It is to be noted that the book reader Eucalyptus does not come with any books, but the K.S. is available for download onto devices and could be read at another time.

Whether it be the fact that Apple’s development team may decide that your application isn’t good enough for their devices or good enough to be released to their “cloud,” there are different places for software developers to go to have their programs viewed by many.

Apple has also been thinking of releasing a “net book” also. I suppose the net book would run like net books that run on Windows or Linux and are just able to run simple programs or surf the internet. Apple would undoubtedly make a net book that would be impossible to make programs for and far less powerful than any of the current mac books that are out there today.

The mac/pc commercials make me so mad because the pc just gives up when “the Megan” asks for a computer that doesn’t have software issues like crashing or viruses. Well guess what “Megan,” Mac’s have all those same problems too. As a matter of fact, I have been on a Mac many times in the past and gotten their version of a blue screen of death. I mean the iMac may have been the worst personal computer I have ever used, however there are so many people who think that the Macintosh name and product line is the best thing that has ever happened to the computer industry.

Whatever the reason, I think that people will enjoy PC’s and Windows mobile, Android, WebOS, and Symbian phones for much longer once the novelty of the iPhone wears off (like everyone knows it will).

In a act only a crazy, but extremely wealthy, old man would decide to use, Rupert Murdoch has announced that he wants to make his websites invisible to Google’s search engine.

Why would anyone want to do that? After all, if someone has never discovered the site, the best way to obtain that reader is through a search engine. Well, he doesn’t see it that way. He said, “If they’re just search people, they don’t suddenly become loyal readers.”

However, in my opinion, having someone be able to find your site through search is the best way to GET new readers and if someone is reading your site that’s better than them not reading your site, right? Plus, how is someone going to become a loyal reader if they don’t know about the site? I always thought the best way that sites become popular is because they are able to be searched for.

I have a list of websites I read everyday; many of them are websites I searched for.

Murdoch is also planning on doing something that has really failed to “take off” in the past; he wants to put his news sites behind a “subscription wall.” His reasoning behind this move is that websites as well as blogs don’t earn “serious money.” He currently has this in place at the Wall Street Journal; at the site you can read the first couple of paragraphs of an article but if you want to read more, you have to be a subscriber. Typically, the same article or something with similar content can be found by searching through Google or some other search engine for free.

He did say that he feels that the same “search engine people” are the ones who “steal” stories from his sites. He said, “they just take them.”

This man really underestimates the power of Google and other search engines. I also think that he is too stubborn to realize when he’s made a mistake. What I mean by that is when his plan fails to work, he won’t go back to the way things were. He will keep his “news” sites subscription based where very few people will read it and the sites will quickly fall in every ranking.

Do you remember the days when you had to know someone to get a gmail account? It was only a few years ago and since then millions have signed up for the free e-mail accounts from Google. Not only that, but because of the huge amount of email that can be stored in one account, it revolutionized free e-mail. Now, Google wants to open up its Voice to those who want to hear it.

Google Voice is a Skype-like VoIP service. I can’t exactly tell you how it works, but you get a number through Google and you can make calls with your phone through either a dialer (like GDialPro for the Palm Pre) or through the Voice.Google.com portal. All you do is enter the number you want to call and Google Voice will call your phone and connect you with the number.

Right now, you have to go to a website to sign up and be put on a waiting list for a Google Voice account. I was lucky enough to get one just a couple of weeks ago. I really wanted one after reading all the hoopla that was going on between AT&T, Apple, and Google regarding a Google Voice app for the iPhone.

Google is now wanting to take a viral approach to marketing the program. It said that in the coming weeks it wants to offer current users the ability to invite their friends and family to the program.

I believe that Google can benefit greatly by a viral approach to expansion with the Voice program. Look how much attention has been brought to it just by publicity alone. Whenever people can make calls for free, it is exciting. I recently had a family member move to Canada and I would love to talk to her on the phone sometimes, but it is so expensive to call with my cell phone (and, like many people my age, I don’t have a land line anymore. I don’t even have a Vonage line).

Google Voice has a lot of features that people have to pay for with traditional lines. You can even send text messages through Google Voice. That is so neat considering that many times a SMS account costs $.20 a text message unless you have a plan.