Apple has a page devoted to their iPhone Developer Program, but you still need to sign up before they will tell you any details. Some are complaining about the restrictions Apple has put on native programs written for the iPhone but they don’t sound that limiting to me. I imagine that the more severe ones, such as restrictions on private API’s and open source software, will be eased over time.

I had read before that Apple intended to ban emulators on the iPhone, but I can’t find any official confirmation of that. Apparently there’s no blanket ban, at least according to this: StyleTap officially bringing Palm emulator to the iPhone / iPod touch.

Of course, programming for the iPhone using Xcode isn’t really that different than using the Windows CE, Pocket PC, or Smartphone support built-in to Visual Studio. I’m sure that anyone who has ever used Visual Studio has created at least one “Hello world” program for the emulated smartphone. But has the Pocket PC ever excited as many people as the iPhone?

At this point, my interest in iPhone development remains just curiosity. A few problems remain:

• I don’t own a Macintosh (necessary to run Xcode and the iPhone emulator)
• I don’t own an iPhone (necessary to test programs)
• If I did own an iPhone, I would have travel around 100 miles to use it (according to the coverage maps)

The first two problems could be remedied without too much trouble, but the third would be a bit more difficult.

There seem to be two caveats:

• The SDK and tools run only on the Mac.
• You can test your programs on the emulator for free, but you need an Apple Developer program membership (which costs $99) if you want to run them on a real iPhone or sell them at the Apple iPhone Marketplace.

Both seem to be pretty reasonable restrictions. It sounds as if it is pretty easy to experiment with iPhone development, which I’m sure is exactly what Apple wants.

In the store, they had the Windows and Macintosh computers set up in aisles adjacent to each other. I thought that the manner in which they were presented spoke volumes. One of the Windows computers was frozen with a blue screen of death. Another had stalled on boot-up and was displaying a BIOS error in text mode. Another had a screen filled with cascading error boxes. The remaining Windows computers were displaying a very dark, drab wallpaper, and it was unclear if customers could try them.

On the other hand, all of the Macintoshes were working and all were displaying colorful screens.  One was running a bright and cheerful demo. The other Macintoshes were clearly available for customers to try. That said more about the setup at that store than the merits of the Macintosh versus Windows, but it was still an interesting contrast.

P.A Semi is a fabless semiconductor company, meaning that they design chips but don’t manufacture them. They have recently been focused on developing the PWRficient family of processors. The processors are Power PC compatible, 64-bit, multicore, very fast, but very low-power. When you consider that Apple previously used Power PC processors in the Macintosh and switched to Intel largely because they needed faster, low power chips, then one potential explanation is obvious.

Most of the theories regarding the acquisition seems to concern one of these five ideas:

1. Apple is attempting to extract price concessions from Intel by threatening to use P.A. Semi chips.
2. Apple wants some item or items of intellectual property developed by P.A. Semi.
3. Apple wants the 150 engineers employed by P.A. Semi.
4. Apple plans to use P.A. Semi chips in a future iPhone or iPod.
5. Apple plans to switch back to Power PC chips in a future Macintosh.

According to the Wall Street Journal Business Technology Blog, Steve Jobs himself suggested (but did not actually confirm) that numbers three and four are the real reasons.

My personal favorite is number five, although I think that such a move is extremely unlikely. Switching to Intel processors was certainly a good business move that helped Apple lower costs and increase sales. But from a purist’s point of view, the move to Intel robbed Apple of some of its charm.

After they made the switch, Steve Jobs confirmed that Apple had been maintaining an Intel version of OS X for two years. I think that statement has led people to underestimate the difficulty of porting an operating system to another processor. Even if the operating system is designed for portability, it is not a trivial undertaking, certainly not something done on the off chance that it might prove useful later. The Intel port was developed not just with some vague idea of portability, but because Steve Jobs had been considering a strategic move to Intel for some time.

The Power PC is a different story, because Apple still maintains the Power PC version of OS X for older Macintoshes. A switch back to the Power PC would be possible at any time, although I don’t see what Apple could expect to gain in the short term. But it might make more sense as part of a long-term plan, especially if Steve Jobs sees a future problem with Macintosh cloning. Some people have been predicting the demise of the Power PC version of OS X in the near future. If P.A. Semi is actually part of a long term plan for the Macintosh, then maybe the Power PC version of OS X will continue to be developed, just to keep all options open.