Rather, could Android software development suffer because it won’t be able to attract the same number of developers — who are now looking to make boatloads of cash via the iPhone apps store?

Correct me if I’m wrong folks, and Android may surprise us yet,but there doesn’t seem to the same kind of simple application where you click, choose, and download — which is tied into a singular payment scheme.  True, one would think that this would natively exist with software for cell-phone companies that allow you to put everything onto a single bill (I think our Japanese friends have already sorted this one out) but this level of sophistication is something that I will certainly be watching for with Android’s release.

Why?  Well, I’m sure that many developers are looking to contribute to the growing library of Android applications out the goodness of their own heart, I’m sure many of them are also writing with dollar signs in their eyes … particularly with the rash of articles written recently about how profitable it can be writing popular iPhone apps.

Will Apple and the iPhone be poaching the best and brightest for the lure of cold hard cash?  Hard to say at this point — particularly as I’m sure people program and dev for a great many reasons.  

But with application development (for the iPhone, for Facebook) clearly being much more than a basement hobby, and something so profitable that it can power a real business, it seems reasonable to think that from the developer side at least, free vs. fee is, going to be, for some, a bit of a no-brainer.

On the flip-side, of course, is the mind-set of the user of the respective systems.  Will iPhone users, because of things like iTunes, be conditioned to paying for software?  And will Android users, being used to open-source ethos (whether they call it that or not), be used to software that is free?

I guess we’ll have to wait until 10:30EST today (and likely much later) to find out.

Having played around with Google’s new browser, Chrome, I’d like to offer my two bits to the ongoing bloggasm around its release.  If you’re looking for an indepth review, wander over to Uncle Walt’s breakdown. I modestly submit to you that if you’re a busy individual, these are the only two things you really need to know before you go and try it out for yourself.

1. Its incomplete, but that’s ok. 

In fact, its more than ok.  Its practically zen in how fast, how small, and how lightweight it is.  Its also standards compliant.  True, its many features echo things that either IE8 does, or Opera does, or what Firefox extensions do, but to me that’s neither here nor there.  What’s glaringly missing, however, is that unlike Firefox, it doesn’t (yet?) support extensions or plugins.  That means no Firebug.  No ad block.  And no Delicious tagging.  Also there’s no Auto-RSS subscribing feature.  Its focus, apparently is web applications present and future, which is something I’ll talk about briefly in a second, and for what its worth, they too are light and snappy as well (picnik was absolutely rocking)  If memory leakage is a problem for you, brief tests (by me) seem to show that its pretty tight ship at around 60mb with multiple windows open, javascript and AJAX going and so on.  Bottom line:  it works very well at being a browser, but its missing some very important bells and whistles that power users might need.  

2. In fact, its probably part of the plan.

From Google’s point of view, Chrome is probably only one part of a multi-year over-reaching strategy that precious few are privvy too.  It probably involves buying up tons of dark fibre.  Of building secret data stations all around the States.  And last, but not least, that Android thing that got so much hoopla, and its own emphasis on applications and rich media.  I think its probably impossible to know EXACTLY how Chrome plays a role in all of this, but I think its a safe bet that Google wants as much as control as humanly possible over how it delivers web experiences, and if all of the above strategic moves are consistent with that, then owning its own browser? A triple check in that category as well.

BTW, exactly how multi-year is the Chrome plan?  I’m going to say that there’s probably a strategic document that says Chrome will probably be ready to hit prime time in a minimum of 3 years, although they’ll continue to evolve the product in stages over that time frame.

Why three years?  Its no hard and fast indication, but Google’s renewed its financial and joint-venture relationship with the Mozilla Foundation until 2011.  I don’t care what the public relations folk say: Firefox and Chrome are headed for a collision course, and Google’s happy to give the appearance of playing along for a few years until its good and ready to pimp Chrome on its own real estate.