For a minute, put yourself in the mindset of a developer of phone software. Arguably, having developed applications which were sold on Verizon Wireless and other cell carriers, this is a bit easier for this author. As a developer then, and attempting to receive some sort of compensation for your work, it would seem that there are too many platforms to develop for, all of them bad for different reasons.

Qualcomm’s Binary Runtime Environment for Wireless (aka BREW) is used by several major wireless carriers. From a technical perspective, it is a C-based API, which means that the learning curve is slight for C programmers. The best thing it has going for it, though, is that there is a centralized game store and market place. In theory, developers post their applications and games up to Qualcomm’s website. Carriers look through those apps and choose which ones they want to sell to their customers. Customers have one place to go to buy apps (Verizon calls it “Get It Now“). For a developer, BREW sounds like a great model. You don’t need to worry about selling to end users, or billing, or packaging up your product and selling it in a store. Customers can go on their phone and see a list of every piece of software available to purchase. If they do buy yours, they get the price of your app added to their phone bills. Nice and simple. What could be wrong with this?

Well, as it turns out, carriers aren’t interested in providing, what is to them, low margin software to their customers. They want to be able to sell games and applications (and ringtones) mostly as a way to get customers to switch to their network, and buy their cellphones. Consequently, there is little or no incentive for a carrier to decide to actually carry the game you (the developer) posted to the Qualcomm web site. This is why if you have Verizon Wireless, almost all the games available from “Get It Now” are from either from a huge game studio like EA or Sony, or based on a popular TV Show or Movie. The carriers simply don’t want to be bothered by a plethora of developers for what they consider to be chump change. As a developer, if the carrier doesn’t choose to carry you, you are out of luck. No way to get around them, no way to appeal, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

The other major platform for phone development is Java 2 Mobile Edition (AKA, J2me). This is the complete oposite end of the spectrum. Anyone can create a J2me app. When it first came out, J2me looked very promising. Like Java, which it is a subset of, software written in J2me could be run on any phone with Java support. Customers would be free to acquire software from any developer, anywhere on the planet — the carrier wouldn’t have complete control of the application pipe like in the BREW model. This would mean that developers have a much larger market of customers to sell to. Sounds like a good solution, right?

Unfortunately, while J2me was promised to be a great equalizer, this has turned out to be far from the reality. While BREW apps do require some amount of customization for each different handset it is released on, J2ME can vary even more greatly between them. Even different phone models released by the same manufacturer may not support the same J2me program! Because of the sheer number of phones and carriers which support J2me software, it is nearly impossible for a developer to write and test software on all of them. This means that any J2me application will only run on some subset of J2me phones.

Additionally, while the phone carriers cannot blockade access to their devices, developers must figure out how to get their product in front of customers. They must conduct marketing, figure out a billing model, and make sales individually to each customer. Applications are not digitally signed (as they are in BREW), so it becomes difficult for developers to prevent piracy of their product. Combined with the fact that most phones have a horrific user interface in general, and especially for installing J2me software, there are a series of significant barriers for selling J2me software which make it unpredictable to determine beforehand whether a product will succeed. This is a scenario that deters business-minded developers.

Of course, there is also the set of “Smart Phone” platforms, Palm-OS(now defunct), Windows Mobile, and Simbian. These each have their own sets of pros and cons. Certainly they have been successful targets for some developers, but for the purposes of this article we will say that the average user of those phones are typically very different from the average user of a regular phone, and specifically of an iPhone.

This brings us to the iPhone SDK. Apple seems to have derived the strengths of the business models of both BREW and J2ME. All software will be digitally signed, and distributed centrally by Apple. The digital signatures work two ways: They protect the developer from customer piracy, and they protect the customer from mischievous developers. There will be a centralized list of applications, so users can easily browse through apps they might want to download or purchase, and billing will be handled by Apple, which allows developers to concentrate on what they should be: developing. Unlike BREW, Apple has taken a stance that encourages independent developers to target the iPhone. They will place lesser-known, less expensive, or even free applications up on their store right alongside the bigger market players. Like J2ME, developers don’t need to strike a special deal with each carrier in order to get their software into people’s hands.

So, with this perspective, what are people complaining about? That they can’t write software which unlocks the iPhone. That they can’t publish software which curtails Apple’s own SDK or Safari web browser. Make no mistake about this: those complaints are pure ridiculousness. While it is to their advantage to do so, Apple didn’t have to release an SDK at all. Looking at the leading established models of software development, BREW and J2me, we can see that the Apple model takes their strengths and leaves their weaknesses — for the benefit of all 3rd party developers, and especially the independent and open source developers! This should be self-evident by looking at who the people are who are making the complaints — unfortunately, as with all things Apple, the enormous hype machine of the Interwebs has distorted the picture. Complaints are driven by …. Sun (founder of J2me, which Apple has no use for, and which will consequently suffer), Firefox (which, while a great desktop browser, wants to get into the mobile space dominated by mobile Safari) and Opera (struggling to be relevant in any market, desktop or mobile). Obviously, these complainers have motivations that are not entirely altruistic. (Note to avoid flamewar: this author is a huge desktop Firefox fan).

The second topic of complaint is that Apple won’t allow applications to run in the background, and they won’t allow voice-over-ip applications (like Skype) to run over the cell carrier (although running over Wi-Fi is fine). These really shouldn’t be the sore points they seem. From a developer’s perspective, there are certainly neat things one could do if allowed to run applications in the background (like an IM client, for example), which aren’t really practical otherwise. However, looking from a holistic perspective, some testers found that the battery would run dry in as little as four hours while running only basic background tasks. The radio and the CPU, when used actively, use a lot of power. This isn’t Apple’s fault — it’s a law of phsyics. And while I’m sure there are many people who would like to use Skype instead of their AT&T phone minutes, I’m sure the average kindergarden student can figure out why Apple won’t allow voice-over-ip apps to run over the unlimitted data connection instead of using your talk minutes.

So, what can we conclude about Apple’s SDK decisions? Certainly, they studied the existing market and the development models. The solution they came up with, from a business sense, not only takes the best of what is out there, but also meshes extremely well with Apple’s existing iTunes one-stop-shop model for how they already handle music, TV shows, and movies. While some developers may have gripes about some of the policies of the SDK (background tasks, Sun, Opera), the limitations are in actuality completely reasonable.

While the ultimate success of custom apps on the iPhone will only be determined with time, it is certainly off to a good start. As a past independant software developer, I see all of Apple’s decisions on the SDK as smart moves (even the ones that aren’t the most convenient to me), and ultimately very good to the customer, while also being reasonable, fair, and enabling opportunity for the developer. The only ones who don’t like it are the big-name established businesses which this new model will disrupt.

Last night, my wife and I decided to wander around downtown Manhattan, stopping in at Starbucks with our iPhones and checking out the iTunes experience. My wife, spending a lot of time in Starbucks, was quite interested to play around with the iTunes store while she was listening to the (usually tasteful) Starbucks music. Myself, not being as large of a coffee fanatic, was much more interested in the “free song coupons” Starbucks is handing out for the next month.

Our first stop was the World Financial Center, where there is a small Starbucks with no seating. We were somewhat apprehensive if a smaller shop like this would have wi-fi. Promisingly, we saw signs outside the door showing off their iTunes integration to businessman (and women) passerby’s. We whipped out out iPhones (yes, we’re that cool. If only we had been wearing those black leather trench coats from The Matix), and pushed the new “iTunes” button that showed up after the 1.1.1 iPhone update.

“Unable to connect to iTunes store,” both our phones complained. We went to the clerk. “Sorry, we don’t have the ‘black box,” he said. We would hear more of this ‘black box’ later in the evening. Apparently, the goal of several enormous signs outside the Starbucks there was to trick people into thinking they could access the iTunes store, whereas there was no intention of offering any sort of wi-fi service. We left, refusing to buy coffee there.

Our next stop was the Starbucks on Broadway, near Wall Street. This one is sort of hidden if you don’t know its there, but inside it is fairly spacious. Not as large as the monstrous city-block Starbucks, but bigger than the typical Barnes & Nobles Starbucks. Again, we whipped out our iPhones, and this time a “Starbucks” icon appeared in the iTunes store app. While waiting for it to load, we argued about the song playing at the time — Mr Tambourine Man. My wife insisted that it was Bob Dylan, although I thought it was actually Paul McCartney. After arguing this for some time, we noticed that the store wasn’t coming up. So, we went to the clerk.

“Thanks for telling us,” she said. “We’ve been having problems with our ‘Black Box’ all day, but we have no way of telling if it’s working.” Hmm. This wasn’t sounding very promising. I don’t quite understand how Starbucks can install wi-fi routers in their cafe’s, but not even provide a green light or something so that the employees know if its working. “It’s too bad,” she continued. “I’ve been dying to see how it works.” This was already after 9:00pm. Hmm … all day, and she hadn’t seen it work once. We ordered coffees (she had been helpful, after all), and we were surprised to be handed two “free song cards” for the iTunes store. Cool.

The way these cards work, btw, is that each card is for a specific song. There are 32 songs in all, and you can’t choose which card you get. So, your first 10 songs or so will be great, but eventually you will start to get duplicates. Since you can only get 1 card per day, per person, it will be a lot of lattes before you get all 32 songs. Still, it’s a great incentive. My wife and I were planning how we could go to different Starbucks and order a cookie or biscotti at each one, until we got all the cards. Then we realized it would cost us something like $100 in cookies and Frapacinos to get $32 worth of songs. Only the heavy caffeine addict need apply.

Ever onwards, we headed to a random Starbucks that happened to be on our way home. It was a bit off the main street, but it was bigger than either of the previous ones we had been to. As we arrived, they were stacking the stools on the table, and not allowing new customers in. Being persistent, we huddled outside the window in the gathering cold and tried one final time. Unfortunately, like the first, this Starbucks didn’t appear to have any wi-fi presence whatsoever. Bummer.

Three Starbucks in downtown Manhattan, one of the showcase cities for this promotion, and we had nothing to show for it but a caffeine high and 2 free songs on iTunes. We were disappointed with the technology, but we considered it to be a positive night as a whole. When they stop giving out free song cards next month though, they’d better have the Starbucks iTunes store working, because a caffeine high with no music to listen to is a bad combination.

By the way, it was Bob Dylan singing Mr Tambourine Man.

Overview

The Kodak EasyShare all-in-one printer is aimed at the Small or Home Office user, or those people who need to do a little bit more than average. As far as your paper-related needs go, this device can handle just about anything — printing (double-sided), scanning (up to 600 dpi), copying, faxing (complete with phone book), and photo printing.

Most of these things it can even do without a computer attached. Moreover, it features some advanced on board software, with an interactive LCD panel, which allows you to tweak the settings. This means that you can do things like set the print quality, zoom, number of copies, or even the duplex settings of a copy job without even using a computer at all. Frankly, this device is probably worth it just for those features alone, and the fact that it can also act as a printer is just a bonus.

There only technical problem with the 5500 is that while it does have a scanner/copier document feeder, the document feeder can only scan one side of a piece of paper. So, while you can print out documents in duplex, you can’t scan them back in without some manual intervention.

I also would have liked to see a network port on the back in addition to a USB port. This would allow you to put the printer further away from your computer, and also make it easier to share with all the computers in our house or office. With all the features that the 5500 provides, you won’t be the only one wanting to use it if there are any other computer users on your network.

Unboxing

The trade off for all these features is that the EasyShare 5500 is a reasonably large device. This is probably not something you want to stick next to your monitor, unless you have one of the larger desks out there. You also won’t be able to put it on most shelves in a bookcase or desk, as it is pretty deep. The paper feeder for the multi-page copier/scanner, while an excellent feature, means that the top of the printer is delicate, and you won’t want it to be anywhere that things can fall on it (like some messy home offices I’ve seen).

Also, out of the box, the 5500 is one of the most intimidating printer’s I’ve had to set up, with lots and lots of tape to remove from delicate parts, and some reasonably forceful installation of the printer head marked “DELICATE” all over. However, Kodak does provide a nice and easy 9-step “getting started” guide. While the pictures make it very straightforward, you don’t even get to the software until step 9.

The Printer Experience

When first powering on, the 5500 lets you choose a language for its on-screen menu, and goes through a calibration routine. This involves it printing out a photograph, and then scanning it back in to check its work. This is much better than single-purpose printers, for which you have to manually correct the heads.

Another interesting note is that this printer didn’t come with a USB cable in order to connect it to a computer. This was a pretty glaring omission, as they couldn’t include an inexpensive cable on a several hundred dollar product.

The computer-less operation is really a breeze. You can print or scan items to a built-in compact-flash or SD-card slot, utilize the Fax or photocopy features without missing a beat. You can also connect your digital camera to one of two USB ports on the front.

Unfortunately, it didn’t seem to like the 2 GB SD-card I tried with it. It seemed to hang on “Reading. Please wait…” whenever I inserted it.

The OS Experience

Windows XP

So, I plugged the printer in without installing the provided CD. I let Windows check the “Software Update” site for the driver, and it found it and installed without problems. It shows up as 3 devices in Windows XP: A still camera, a scanner, and a printer.

Printing worked totally fine on the first try. One interesting thing to note, though, is that the printer will try to print on photo paper if the photo paper tray is pushed in — regardless of what you are trying to print. To print on 8 1/2 x 11, just pull out the photo tray.

Printing double-sided is a wonderful feature on a printer, and its entertaining to watch the printer spit out a completed page, only to suck it back in so that it can print the reverse side.

Although Kodak claims that the 5500 can get up to 32 pages per minute in black-and-white, I found that using the default settings (medium quality, “normal” ink drying time, double-sided pages), it was more like 6 or possibly 8. Even at “medium” print quality, however, the 5500 did an excellent job. I was unable to see any pixels or artifacts in printed Word document fonts with the naked eye. Ink Jet printers have come a long way — the quality of the 5500 easily rivals laser printers, and the ink was completely dry by the time it finished — no smudges.

Linux

Unfortunately, the Linux experience with the Kodak EasyShare 5500 was not as smooth. I tried it on a fully updated Ubuntu 7.04. Linux only recognized a digital camera, with no photos on it it import. It did not recognize it as either a scanner or a printer.

This wasn’t an auspicious start, and frankly, I haven’t run into a product which isn’t supported on Linux this blatantly in nearly 10 years. After some Internet searching though, it looks like Kodak just couldn’t care less about Linux support. Shame on them.

Mac OS

Although the Mac does recognize the printer from the print-menu, it doesn’t have a driver for the 5500 specifically. Installing the supplied Kodak CD will allow you to print and scan using Mac OS X.

For Home / Home Office

For Small Office / Business

However, for the price of the all-in-one 5500, you could only get a very basic networked printer, without most of the color and scanning capabilities. Ultimately, if the issues related to sharing and Linux don’t dramatically affect your office environment, the Kodak EasyShare 5500 is the printer to get.

Photos

What I am more interested in, is “Can I use it to replace my Blackberry?”

The main things I’m looking for is this:
1. Able to connect to Exchange
2. Push Email
3. Filtering which email folders I see from the phone
4. New emails in any folder appear on the main phone screen
5. Connecting to the corporate address book
6. Calendar Syncing

Before I start to describe my experience, I’d like to point out that this is based on the iPhone’s “1.0″ software. Apple has indicated that it will be improving its software over time. As all the limitations I mention here can be resolved by a software update, I would hope that Apple will be able to address these issues quickly, which would have a huge impact on my conclusions.

Connect to Exchange

Let’s dispel a few common myths. The iPhone can connect to Microsoft Exchange at your company. However, a lot of companies only enable the proprietary Microsoft protocol “active sync” for their Exchange servers, and don’t allow the industry standard “IMAPS” protocol. Many companies claim that this is for security reasons, but in actuality this is not true at all. IMAPS is secured through SSL just like an encrypted web page. The reality is that many corporate IT departments are too lazy to set up the IMAPS protocol, which allows both the iPhone as well as other email clients (such as Thunderbird) to connect to Exchange. My company does have IMAPS enabled, so the iPhone had no problems connecting in my case.

Push Email

Apple is currently supporting push email from some sources, such as GMail and Yahoo Mail. They do not support push email yet from Microsoft Exchange, although the rumor is that support for that may be coming in a future software update. If you don’t have push email, you can set the iPhone to check mail every 15, 30, or 60 minutes. It will also check for new mail every time you open the mail app.

Mail Folders

I think this is one of the biggest problems with the iPhone’s mail app, the the only real reason I can’t use it to replace my Blackberry. You can’t choose which mail folders show up in the iPhone from your IMAP mail account. Many people use Microsoft Outlook/Exchange at work, and use its “rules” system to automatically separate incoming emails into different organizational folders. While the iPhone can see all of these folders, only messages in the “INBOX” will trigger the iPhone to alert you of a new message. If you have Exchange set to automatically place new emails in a sub folder, the iPhone will not tell you about them.

Connecting to Corporate Address Book

The standard way of doing this is via an LDAP connection to Microsoft Exchange or other LDAP directory. While the iPhone can (and will) sync to your Outlook address book, it will not sync your company directory, and it will not let you look up names against the company directory like Windows Mobile and Blackberry will. This comes in very handy when writing emails to co-workers, or simply looking up their phone number to call them. This is an area where it would be a very useful feature for current Blackberry users to have, but it’s not strictly necessary in order to switch to the iPhone

*UPDATE*
Calander Syncing

I don’t use the calander on my phone so much, but based on some feedback to this post, here’s a bit more info on it. Currently, you can sync your iPhone calender on either Windows or Mac, but only when you have it plugged in to your computer. This is unlike email, which gets synced wirelessly. Also, this is unlike the Blackberry or Windows Mobile, both of which can sync your calendar via wireless.

Conclusion

I encourage you to read more about the iPhone from other sources. It really is an excellent phone. For business users who don’t need instant email, but can settle for every 15 minutes, and who don’t use Microsoft Exchanges “rules and filters,” switching to the iPhone will be painless. For heavier Blackberry users who rely on the company directory integration, or who work in a frontline support role where getting emails instantly is a must, you probably want to wait for at least a few software revisions in the iPhone before switching.

While the iPhone is a great device, it really is geared towards consumers at the moment, and business use has been sidelined. However, it wouldn’t take much for Apple to address the biggest issues business users face, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them all resolved by the end of the year.

SpaceX broadcasted the entire launch and flight via a live webcast. They had cameras mounted both at the launch platform, and on the rocket itself. When the first stage ran out of fuel, a pneumatic piston extended, kicking the second stage off the bottom of the rocket, and sending it hurtling back to Earth (a parachute allowed the first stage to fall back gracefully, and land in the ocean for recovery).

The second stage then lit up pushing the Falcon 1 even higher. Unfortunately, this is where the problems started. As the second stage started running low on fuel, the fuel began to slosh around inside the fuel tank. This caused the Falcon 1 to start rocking back and forth. This rocking got worse, and became a spin. Eventually, the motion was so bad that the fuel wasn’t going to the engine anymore … it was just bouncing around inside the fuel tank. At that point, the second stage engine died, and the Falcon 1 fell back to Earth, to be burned up in the atmosphere. It had gotten higher than the initial Space Shuttle orbit.

SpaceX considers this to be a successful launch: Other than the problem with gas bouncing around, everything else worked flawlessly. Their next launch will be their first commercial payload, in September. This will be the real test of their business model. While SpaceX has proven that they can get to space, the crux of their plan is that once the first and second stages of their rocket have fallen back to Earth, they can use them again. This isn’t a given — rockets are under enormous stress when they launch, and there is a good chance that they will be unusable after even 1 launch. However, if SpaceX is able to reuse their rockets as few as 4 or 5 times, there is a good chance that they can achieve their goal, which is to reduce launch costs by a factor of 10.

Read the official SpaceX report here.

Space X is a new company in the Space 2.0 race. This is a race by private companies to provide cheap launch capabilities. In the next few years, this will usher in a while new industry of tourism, mining, manufacturing, and eventually, colonization. Space X’s premise is that they will have a series of completely reusable rockets; Where every rocket launched to date has burned away sections of itself during its flight, the Falcon series of rockets will drop its used-up sections by parachute where they can be recovered and re-used.

Many of the new generation of space companies are at the same point in their business: their spaceships are undergoing final development and beginning flight testing. Space X however is perhaps the furthest along. Depending on the success of today’s launch, they will be catapulted ahead of their competition.

Keep in mind that there are some items for which a large number of similar products is okay. A perfect example is in USB flash storage. There are dozens of products available, and they’re all basically the same — about the same size, the same range of storage, roughly the same speed, and even the same price, give or take. Just about the only thing you can really choose with a USB flash drive today is the color. This sort of market is generally known as a “commodity.” If you think about it, you can buy [and sell] USB flash storage about as easily as you can buy and sell just about anything. The individual products are completely interchangeable (and undifferentiated).

Then there are near-commodity products. These are items which are commodities, but don’t necessarily have to be. The only thing preventing one product from “breaking out” of the pack is a lack of innovation. Look at USB hard drives. They’re nearly identical, except for capacity. One brand is as good as another. But what if one company decided to put a headphone jack on theirs, and let you listen to any MP3’s you had stored without needing a computer? What if one came with bluetooth support, or wi-fi? For an extra $30 or so, that would be a pretty cool product, and I’d be likely to buy it instead of a “plain” one. Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be many companies who make USB hard drives with any imagination. I’m not sure what their executive management meetings are like — probably something along the lines of “Hey, these things seem to sell well, let’s sell some.”

There will always be commodity items, and near-commodity items, and that’s a good thing. Its what drives prices down. But let’s talk about the breakaway hits. Like, say, the Apple iPod. The iPod is really good for a bunch of reasons. It plays your existing music and movies. It provides a store where you can buy movies, music, and tv shows easily. You don’t feel like the iTunes store is trying to trick you or deceive you in any way — if you buy something there, you can watch/listen to it on your devices. The iPod itself is nice — good quality, small, and light.

There are certainly a lot of other personal music players out there, but the iPod sells better than its competitors because it is a better product — it was the definition of innovation when it was first released, and it continued to add new features as it went along (like video). Now, along comes Microsoft looking to compete with the iPod. So, they decide to develop a product now known as the Zune. Up until its launch, Steve Balmer has touted the Zune as an iPod-killer. In other words, “better than an iPod.” In fact, Matt Jubelirer , the Microsoft project lead for Zune development, talked at length about how innovative the Zune was. Microsoft spend millions upon millions of dollars in advertizing, got retail stores to feature it, and raved about their online store, and how the face of personal music players will be changed forever.

Then the Zune was released. Without making any judgments on how good the Zune is or whether you should get one, it only had one feature that was new: wi-fi support. OK, that sounds innovative. I can imagine lots of cool things I might be able to do with my music player over wifi! Yet, the only thing you can actually do is share a “preview” of your music files to people in the area, which expires after 3 days or 3 plays. And, even though the Zune sports this single, although crippled innovation, there are a multitude of things which it doesn’t do, many of which even “me too” music players can: It won’t play your existing music, even if you bought it from Microsoft (!). It won’t let you subscribe to podcasts. It attaches DRM to your existing music. It’s bigger and heavier than most compareable music players. They have an online store which is difficult and confusing to use, with DRM rules which are not straightforward, and leave the user with the clear impression that they do not control the items they buy.

The strange part? After the Zune was released, Microsoft’s tune suddenly changed. Instead of touting how revolutionary and outstanding their new product was, Bill Gates was calling it a “modest competitor” to the iPod. So, did management really have no idea that their product wasn’t really anything special? Most probably, of course they did, but they were hoping that if they pushed it hard enough, they would be able to sell anyway. And probably, it did sell better than it would have if they didn’t push it so hard. However, the thing that really starts hurting the manufacturer is that the next time they release a product (like, Zune 2.0), no one is going to pay attention to their marketing, even if it really can do what it advertises.

Even though Microsoft seems to be aware of the problem, at least in theory, it hasn’t stopped them from releasing a long line of unremarkable products (any version of office or Windows, or the MSN search site, for example). So, why do things like this happen? Why do companies release “me too” products, when they themselves want to bring innovation as much (or probably more) than consumers want them to?

The real answer, of course, is complicated. Internal politics (Manager A wants Wi-Fi, but Manager B doesn’t. The compromise — Wi-fi goes in, but is limitted in scope). Counter-intuitive interests from business partners (Warner Music/RIAA, anyone?). Adversity to taking risks (”what if they don’t like it?”). Senior management who doesn’t understand the product or the target audience (cough, Steve Balmer).

The reality is that there are all some of the ungainly aspects of how big companies work — including at the “innovative” companies like Apple and Nintendo. The successful ones, however, are able to move past these issues, and focus on the one thing that differentiates them from their competition: What is it that the consumers want?

First off, the mobile phone market is littered with big companies that tried to break into it (ESPN, anyone?). Not to mention, that NYC is crowded with mobile phone stores. You can’t go two blocks without passing a Cingular/Spring/TMobile all-in-one shop. But the big thing is that “Best Buy Mobile” is right across the street from “Verizon at Best Buy.” This is one of those moves that makes you wonder which marketing genius thought it up. Best Buy has decided to steal business from … Best Buy.

This deal is one half of a partnership with Carphone Warehouse, a UK-based phone retailer. Under the agreement, Best Buy will get to establish a “Geek Squad-like” service in the UK for IT consulting. So, upon further examination, it looks like Best Buy is humoring it’s UK partner in order to break into the European Market. Maybe it’s not such a bad move after all. Even if Best Buy Mobile fails to make any profit, IT consulting for consumers can be quite lucrative — possibly enough to compensate from a poorly thought-out US phone retail business.

Here is why investors are wrong, and Red Hat really has nothing to worry about.

First of all, whether Oracle’s goals are to support their customers running Oracle on Linux, or to undermine Red Hat, the fact remains that Oracle really hasn’t been a player in the OS support business. More importantly, they don’t have a lot of experience contributing and working with the Open Source community. This is an area where personal contacts (like those built up by Red Hat since their inception) are the most important commodity.

You can go to lots of other web sites and read all about that sort of stuff, though. Want to know the real reason why Oracle won’t be stealing all of Red Hat’s business? Well, Oracle plans on taking Red Hat Enterprise Linux, stripping out all the logos (which is what Red Hat uses to enforce their licensing), and sell it as a renamed product, for less money.

But, here’s the interesting part. You can get the same exact thing for free already! The CentOS project exactly fits that description. They even provide all of Red Hat’s latest updates and security fixes, usually within hours of Red Hat releasing them. And yet, Red Hat is still around, despite the fact that this lower-cost competitor has been around for years. This shows that cost alone isn’t enough for customers to leave Red Hat, which is the critical hinge of Oracle’s strategy. Let’s not mention the not-very-well-thought-out logic that companies willing to pay for Oracle’s database software (which isn’t cheap) are not going to compromise on their Linux support just because of a few hundred dollar price savings.

Further, there are nothing but unknowns associated with switching to Oracle’s “Unbreakable” Linux. For example, they don’t support the full gamut of Red Hat products, like JBoss, GFS, or Directory Server. Companies requiring this functionality are out of luck, and would no longer have the option of even using them in the future. More importantly, given Oracle’s uncertainty with its Linux strategy in the past, who knows how long it’s going to be until they just scrap the whole product line, leaving their Linux customers who-knows-where? The smart CTO will stay away from this product offering.

So what does this news really mean? First, Larry Ellison is still unpredictable. Second, he seems to have some sort of grudge against Red Hat. And last, with their stock dropping 25% for no real reason, this is a good time to pick up some Red Hat options