One thing I know is that there will definitely be a successor to the original iPhone some time this year. That much came from the lips of the AT&T’s CEO, and hasn’t been disputed by Apple, although they won’t comment any further, of course.

Version 2.0 of the iPhone, expected by the summer, will apparently feature support for the faster 3G Internet networking standard, as opposed to the often poky Edge. This will mean a far more fluid, responsive online experience when you’re out of range of an available Wi-Fi base station.

Now some of you have wondered why Apple didn’t include 3G support right from the starting gate. But, no, it’s not a deep and dark conspiracy to deprive you of a significant feature, or get you to buy a new iPhone a year later. Steve Jobs has already said that the 3G chipsets available when the iPhone was designed drew too much power, meaning battery life would suffer severely. That would imply that, if it’s going to be added later this year, there is hardware available now that sips less power, or the tradeoff won’t be so significant.

In saying that, you have to realize that AT&T has yet to blanket the U.S. with 3G. It’s primarily supported in the larger metropolitan areas, so it would be important that an iPhone with 3G be able to fall back to the Edge network whenever necessary, and I’d assume that’s a given.

But what else would you like to see in the next iteration of the iPhone?

I suppose there’s always GPS, but that can be another power-robbing option, and does the fancy triangulation method used for getting directions in the latest iPhone firmware get the job done? I’m not a fan of navigation systems myself, so I won’t presume to answer that question. But assuming that the current scheme proves adequate, maybe there will be no pressure on Apple to add true GPS capability.

But there are other features I’d like to see in an iPhone, and I rather suspect most could be added to existing units via a software update. That is, except for a camera with built-in flash and a higher resolution imaging chip. I would think two megapixels is the minimum these days for decent pictures on a wireless phone, and it will soon encroach on the low-end of the digital camera market.

Of course, Apple could add voice recognition and perhaps even the ability to shoot videos in software, assuming the onboard processor can handle those chores — and it probably can, considering the iPhone’s great video playback capability.

Then there’s always iChat. Yes, you do have SMS messaging, but I’m not a fan of texting, although iChat is a constant companion on my Mac. Even my RAZR V3 phone has AIM, but it’s so clunky as to be almost unusable. I’d think that an iPhone version would be a dream to use in comparison. Indeed, I’m almost getting used to that touch keypad.

I would also like to see improved text editing tools. Why is it that you can’t cut, copy and paste? Also wouldn’t it be nice to have the full TextEdit on board, so you can actually open and edit Word documents when necessary? Right now, you can only read them, but consider what happens when you’re on the road and your boss or editor needs you to make some immediate changes in a report or manuscript.

Sure, with a notebook computer, this would be a quick job, but if your only Internet access is limited to your iPhone, you’re stuck, except, perhaps, to insert your changes into an email message and let the recipient manually embed them in the actual document. Awkward.

This isn’t to say that you need to depend on Apple as the source of all your iPhone’s software. Now that an officially-sanctioned SDK is imminent, the combined brilliance of thousands of software developers may indeed be harnessed to address many of the things that are lacking in this device.

One feature I’d like to see is pretty basic: Where’s the Flash support? Yes, I know that Flash has had its security issues, but surely the current version is sufficiently robust. Then again, Apple still has to wait for Adobe to deliver the code. Meantime, I’m in the process of removing most of the Flash content from all my sites, so that you can finally see the navigation bar on your iPhone.

In the end, though, I’m still wrestling with the dilemma of whether I should buy an iPhone now or let the matter sit for a few months and see what version 2.0 is like — and what it costs. But after nearly a month with the Apple review unit at hand, I’ve grown to depend on it more and more, and I’ll miss it when I have to ship it back at the end of the week.

I wonder, in the end, how many other journalists have been similarly tempted.

Related Articles:

• Apple Without Steve Jobs
• The MobileMe Wrecking Ball
• Apple’s Financials: Finding a Way to Turn Good News to Bad
• The Inevitable Comparison: Apple’s Financials and the Health of Steve Jobs
• Newsletter #451 Preview: Will Mac Misconceptions Never End?

From time to time, Steve Jobs has said that certain product features were added because of lots of customer requests. Notice he never mentions the press as being the source of such changes, but wouldn’t that still make sense?

Wouldn’t you think that long-time journalists who have covered the technology industry for years ought to have some semblance of an understanding of what features might be salable and significant and what features simply won’t work in the real world?

Maybe, maybe not. I’m kind of leaning towards the latter, and I don’t regard myself as an example of the typical Mac user, for example, that Apple ought to listen to. Having been exposed to all this gear for so many years, I’m probably more of an elitist — make that a financially-poor elitist — and my tastes don’t necessarily reflect the mass market.

So let’s look over the years, particularly during the time when Apple was an allegedly beleaguered company, and what the pundits were telling the company to do. And, worse, when Apple actually listened to them once upon a time.

After years and years of enduring demands from the likes of Bill Gates and the press, Apple relented and decided to license the Mac OS and hardware reference designs. Existing companies such as DayStar, Motorola, Radius and Umax got onboard, as did a startup, Power Computing.

Now Apple had hopes and dreams that these companies would greatly expand the relatively narrow Mac OS market. Instead, they went for the jugular and competed directly against Apple to capture a large segment of business from graphic artists and other content creators that kept the company afloat.

You can imagine what happened then. You see, tinier companies such as Power Computing, which used cheap PC parts with an Apple-designed logic board, were able to cobble together new models faster than Apple and at a lower price. The end result is that lots of Mac users — and I put myself in that category — ended up buying the Power Computing product instead of an Apple.

Clearly there was something wrong with this turn of events, and no doubt the contract was to be faulted for allowing such invasive marketing behavior. Steve Jobs put a stop to it when he took control of Apple, and you can see why he’d be loathe to try it again.

Some pundits suggest Apple should just license certain hardware configurations to other PC makers that would target markets they don’t reach, but this would cause a litany of problems, such as quality control and the possibility that, even then, the third-party boxes would somehow cannibalize the mother ship’s sales in many respects.

Did I mention quality control?

You see, Apple has succeeded in the 21st century to a large extent because they control the entire widget from design to execution and sales. More and more of their products are bought direct from the company, no middleman, no retailer other than Apple’s own. They say Steve Jobs is a control freak, and no doubt he is, but in this case that is a good thing.

It’s also a good thing that Apple has ignored the press about licensing Mac designs or the Mac OS, because either or both threaten to kill the company. Just use elementary school math and you’ll see what I mean, and, yes, they also teach math in college these days, even to budding journalists.

The critics, who imagine the iPhone is a failure, and the iPod will soon be supplanted by the Zune and millions of commodity music players, have also demanded Apple open up iTunes to third-party gear, such as those that support the various Microsoft protocols.

Why?

You see, nobody stops you from adding content on your iPod that you didn’t get from Apple. All the companies that deliver DRM-free content, such as Amazon, provide files you can import into iTunes and sync with your iPod or iPhone. Apple doesn’t have to do anything. Besides, they make most of the profit from the hardware. The store is largely an accommodation to deliver and manage content in as seamless a fashion as possible, but the largest share of the income goes direct to the movie and music companies.

In the end, though, even if Apple won’t listen to me and won’t listen to the press, they will listen to the regular people who pay good money for their products. So none of this should stop you from writing to Steve Jobs or filling out Feedback forms and making your views known. If enough of you demand a product or a feature, don’t be surprised if Apple listens.

Related Articles:

• Apple Without Steve Jobs
• Apple’s Financials: Finding a Way to Turn Good News to Bad
• The Inevitable Comparison: Apple’s Financials and the Health of Steve Jobs
• Newsletter #450 Preview: The iPhone 3G: Three Times a Charm
• Apple’s Prospects: What a Difference a Year Makes!