Newly installed RIM CEO Thorsten Heins took to the press this morning to assure both investors and customers that RIM will continue to pursue its strategy of launching new devices with BlackBerry 10 and the forthcoming launch of BlackBerry PlayBook 2.0 next month, while revealing surprising details, such as the possibility to license BlackBerry 10 to third parties and the reiteration of the commitment to its current strategy.

The news of the resignation of the co-CEOs last night during an NFL game and the introductory statements from Heins  this morning were enough to force a selloff in RIM stock today, ending with an eight percent drop. Ultimately, he is being seen as more of the same in terms of leadership style at RIM, instead of the stark, almost shocking change in leader many analysts and investors were hoping for.

It doesn’t help that Heins is continuing the same strategy that has led RIM to its current declining position in the consumer market in the US and Europe. While it’s enjoying growth in Southeast Asia, overall growth is shrinking every quarter, with more and more business customers moving away from the BlackBerry to Android and iOS now that both platforms have made great strides in corporate security and IT support compared to when both platforms launched in 2008 and 2007 respectively, showing just how much RIM has to do in terms of development with both PlayBook and BlackBerry 10 in order to remain competitive.

Below, comments from Heins taken from the introductory video filmed this morning that demonstrate the continuation of the same leadership style embodied by Balsillie and Lazaridis instead of substantial structural changes needed to turn the company’s fortunes around from its slump.

• “We have taken this to totally new heights and that journey isn’t over yet.”
• “If we continue doing well what we’re doing, I see no problems with us being in the top three players worldwide in the next years in wireless.”
• “At the very core of RIM is the innovation. We always think ahead. We always think forward. We sometimes think the unthinkable. And that is fantastic.”
• “Internally, from a process perspective, I think we need to get a bit more disciplined in our own processes.”
• “We are a great innovative company, but sometimes we innovate too much while we’re building a product.”
• “What we need to get a bit better at here is to have a little bit more of an ear toward the consumer. I want the strengthen this by bringing really good marketing expertise in.”
• “…With the ‘Be Bold’ campaigns, starting right now, I find this really exciting. I’m getting good feedback and we want to continue driving this.”
• “Don’t lose focus on what the present is. Congratulations to the team; we’ve seen great success with PlayBook 2.0 at CES. We are heading absolutely in the right direction.”
• “BB 10, needless to say, we have to ship on time. I can’t wait to see it.”
• “I’m also very performance driven. When we decide on getting something done, I want it to be done on time at good quality and at good cost. That defines our customer satisfaction.”

The above are the words of a leader groomed to continue the same pattern hoping for a different result rather than actively making the drastic changes needed for future success.

In addition he also confirmed an internal investigation into possible licensing of BlackBerry 10 to interested third-parties, though the likelihood of this coming to fruition is very low, as ODMs prefer Android for quick development and deployment and many other alternatives are in various stages of readiness, with webOS being the latest operating system relegated to the open source experiments file after HP abandoned webOS hardware last year.

Since the company’s hopes are now resting on QNX via the PlayBook and BlackBerry 10, it remains to be seen whether the new devices and the relaunch of the PlayBook next month will be enough to jumpstart RIM’s lagging fortunes in the US and Canada, much in the same way that Symbian and Windows Mobile were simply beaten into irrelevance due to shifts in the tastes of consumers for more multimedia oriented devices.

Unfortunately, Heins may come to realize that no amount of hardware or software can change consumer tastes overnight unless it represents the radical shift that helped propel both the iPhone and Android to their current place in the minds of consumers. Now more than ever, RIM would be better served to do away with its current plans and figure out a way to deliver a consumer friendly BlackBerry device that is not only the equal of iOS and Android but surpasses them in ease of use and performance.

We are long past the days where having a solid hardware keyboard and reliable email server were enough to drive the marketplace. RIM needs to learn how to jump ahead of the market or risk becoming another Symbian, webOS, even MeeGo. If they don’t, they only have themselves to blame for their eventual downfall when they had the opportunity to make a substantial change to their business for the better.

Microsoft has been discovered to have changed its requirements for the upcoming ARM version of Windows 8. The change essentially will prohibit ARM devices, including PCs, from running operating systems other than Windows 8 after they ship to customers.

Specifically, Microsoft recently amended its requirements for ARM Windows 8 System Builders. Unlike Windows 8 for Intel-compatible (x86 & x64) machines, the ARM version of Windows 8 will not be sold to the public. To purchase an ARM version of Windows 8, you will have to purchase a device with it pre-loaded (similar to Windows CE devices today, such as Windows Phone). The new requirement calls for utilizing UEFI Secure Boot, a technology that forces manufacturers to instruct devices to boot code certified by the manufacturer for the device.

For consumers, this is similar to locking the bootloader on a smartphone. This is a common practice on mobile phones that secures the device, but blocks running modified or alternative operating systems. Many manufacturers now allow consumers to bypass (or “unlock”) the bootloader lock on select devices (and at times, wireless providers).

In settlements with the Department of Justice during the mid 1990s, Microsoft agreed to not block or prevent PCs from running alternative operating systems, such as Linux. If Microsoft allows Windows 8 for ARM to ship on any device that could be considered a Personal Computer, they could be in violation of this. Such settlements called for other, more trivial actions, such as Microsoft agreeing to laughable acts such as giving away copies of Linux software.

This move even comes after Microsoft specifically noted in the Windows 8 ARM announcements that they would not provide any interruption of ARM’s hardware to boot and access other platforms. Manufacturers are still free to do so if they choose, and often do on embedded devices.

Still, the consumer has been free to make the decision to purchase such a device or not. In the enthusiast community, it is commonplace to replace ARM-based Windows Mobile 6 with Google’s Android.

It is quite likely even without the PC requirement that Microsoft would still be in violation of the United States v. Microsoft settlement. The requirement of UEFI Secure Boot would require Linux and other operating systems to be securely signed by the device’s manufacturer, making them complicit with Microsoft in helping the company maintain its monopoly on UEFI based hardware. The only other EFI machines common in the industry today, are Apple Macintosh computers, which hold a small fraction of the marketplace, arguably below ten percent.

Fears of Microsoft demanding UEFI Secure Boot had persisted since the announcement that Windows 8 ARM would utilize UEFI, a technology pioneered by Intel and first used in mainstream computing by Apple. Repudiation of the move by consumer groups has been almost instantaneous, but if the move is actually a form of antitrust or settlement-breach has been less consistent.

Some argue that Windows 8 ARM does not, at this point, present itself as a solution for mainstream personal computing. These arguments are similar with those that Apple’s iPad, and other ARM tablets, are not personal computers, but rather complimentary to the PC ecosystem.

Apple, which now holds the largest single-manufacturer share of the smartphone market, does lock its bootloader on ARM devices, prohibiting users from selecting another operating system. On the Mac, it’s a different story, the company embraces users installing, or even replacing Mac OS X with Windows, via the Boot Camp initiative. Hackers have also managed to install Android on many Apple iOS devices, however Apple routinely thwarts exploits which enable the process, resulting in a continual cat-and-mouse game.

For Microsoft to comply with the rules of UEFI Secure Boot, and allow for compliance with US v. Microsoft settlements, Windows 8 for ARM would have to provide its own ability in its bootloader to allow for other operating systems to load. Such a move is highly unlikely, and would require complex and major modifications to other’s operating systems… possibly including utilizing open technologies that Microsoft has repeatedly claim infringe on their patents. Microsoft has demanded royalties for using the FAT file system on Android devices, as well as Google Chrome OS devices, for example.

Many, if not all of the terms of the settlement expire this year at the latest. This could indicate that Microsoft was waiting until the expiration of the settlement terms to make such a move. However, Microsoft is clearly aware of the antitrust ramifications that prompted such a settlement, and refusing to allow a PC-like device to boot other operating systems could create for a second wave of breaches of the same antitrust statutes.

Securing bootloaders, UEFI Secure Boot aside, remains controversial. Many in the technology industry insists it is necessary to secure machines from rootkits and other low-level hacking tools that undermine device security. Others however view it as security through obscurity, citing vulnerabilities in bootloaders, and planned obsolescence in hardware’s firmware. UEFI Secure Boot does allow for manufactures to sign multiple operating systems, but updates or other modifications that are common can break such security, leading to a perpetual need for firmware updates, testing, and certification of software.

In the Linux world, software is maintained in a free, open source state, making such certification nearly impossible to offer on a widespread basis. Solutions that rely on Linux, such as Google’s Android and Canonical’s Ubuntu, provide managed/customized versions of these open platforms, but mandating UEFI Secure Boot would prevent up-and-coming platforms from starting up altogether. This stifles innovation, and applied globally, would make building a Linux startup nearly impossible as the world moves to a primarily a two-architecture universe (x86 and ARM).

Windows 8 will mark the first version of the operating system where Microsoft will have a single, monolithic kernel that spans nearly all device form factors. It is all but assured that at least some form of Windows 8 Phone will share the Windows 8 kernel, but will likely not be released until mid or even late 2013. Less clear is the future for Windows Embedded Compact (aka Windows CE), the embedded alternative to mainstream Windows, which will likely continue to exist for lower-end hardware and embedded solutions.

It’s no surprise that everyone at PhoneNews.com opposes the demand for Secure Boot in Windows 8. Manufacturers have always been free to require Secure Boot on devices, based on the clients wants, needs, and requests when ordering them. There is no need from an architectural standpoint that we can see for this demand.

Sprint over the past week has dropped some tidbits on when to expect their innovative Network Vision cell site technology to begin going online, and when to begin expecting LTE-enabled devices.

The embattled carrier created Network Vision as a way of mitigating the five current network platforms that it will power: iDEN, CDMA & EVDO, WiMAX, and LTE. All five have unique spectrum and tuning requirements that have stalled Sprint’s growth over the years. The difference between Sprint CDMA and Nextel iDEN alone cost Sprint millions of consumers, a fact Sprint has begrudgingly admitted, and attempted to correct with three iterations of Direct Connect (iDEN, QChat, and the current “remixed” QChat platform). Adding in Clearwire’s WiMAX, and Sprint’s eventual decision to go to LTE… and Sprint had to create its own solution to this spectrum problem.

Network Vision, as we have covered from the day it was announced, will allow Sprint to toggle resources and spectrum remotely, without accessing towers. This will allow Sprint to dynamically raise and lower spectrum for each of these platforms based on demand, ensuring that customers on legacy CDMA and WiMAX devices can keep using them, and that LTE will operate properly as iDEN is phased out.

The current roadmap that Sprint has announced calls for the deployment of WiMAX and CDMA as soon as possible, rollout has begun in many areas. One thing Sprint is keeping close to the vest however, is how much new WiMAX coverage will become available. It is not clear if WiMAX will immediately be turned on in areas where Sprint has not tapped into the backhaul of Clearwire’s network, or has sufficient resources. WiMAX simply may not be enabled network-wide ever. One thing Sprint is doing, is taking advantage of previously iDEN-only towers, and scrapping iDEN towers that will be redundant in this deployment.

The take-home message for CIOs all the way down to customer is; we’re suggesting you migrate away from that iDEN phone, be it on Boost or Sprint Nextel. iDEN customers clearly will have the most coverage impact that we have seen from source’s maps… and it isn’t a positive improvement at all.

CDMA will benefit, though the ESMR band previously used by iDEN will not be taken advantage of dramatically at first. Keep in mind, Nextel will need the ESMR frequency as long as it is active. For those with non-ESMR phones, and that’s most of you, that means you do not need to throw out your old device to get the best 3G coverage. An ESMR phone will only help in a few areas. Sprint will likely tap most of this bandwidth for LTE, so the primary benefit may lie in the long term; rural areas that see iDEN dismantled, but not WiMAX or LTE until fiber backhaul can arrive.

Sprint, this week, did drop the bombshell that LTE handsets will launch in the second half of 2012. However, this is mostly non-news that other drive-by colleagues in the mobile media simply didn’t realize was already known information. Sprint has said all along that LTE and Network Vision will be in consumers hands long before that date. It remains to be seen if Sprint will do an LTE mobile broadband trial in Q2, but this seems unlikely, as Sprint does not want to overcost hardware with tri-mode CDMA/WiMAX/LTE devices. This means that Sprint will wait until LTE coverage overlaps the vast majority of existing Sprint WiMAX coverage, and then launch CDMA/LTE mobile broadband devices.

In all, we chose to write this article based on information that actually is new, rather than regurgitate the “LTE is coming to Sprint in 2H2012″ that everyone else has reported. We wrote this instead as a primer on what you’ll expect from Sprint over the next year in terms of real-world experience.

The take-home from this is that for most users, the device you have right now will work better in the years to come, be it CDMA or WiMAX. If you buy a WiMAX phone today, you can rest assured it will work better throughout its 2-year contract timeline, and likely well beyond that too. If you have an iDEN device, we suggest getting rid of it… pronto. Sprint may not like that we’re saying that, but we see the coverage drops coming for iDEN. It’s not Sprint’s fault; AT&T did the same thing to their GSM network upon the desperate need to provide 3G/4G coverage to their customers.

Both AT&T and HTC are in similar positions this week; their major mergers have hit major snags.

AT&T’s planned merger with T-Mobile has hit a huge snag. The FCC, over the past 24 hours, has moved to block the merger, citing no way to maintain a competitive wireless landscape. The Federal Communications Commission, and the Department of Justice both must sign off on the planned merger, and all federal lawsuits (such as from Sprint and C Spire Wireless) must be dismissed, in order for the merger to take place.

HTC announced this morning it was reconsidering its planned merger with S3, the graphics chipset manufacturer. This news came within a day of the ITC ruling that Apple did not infringe on S3′s graphics patents. HTC had planned to acquire S3, in an effort to stave off numerous patent infringement claims dating back to the original HTC Touch smartphone.

For AT&T, the challenge in the short-term is difficult. AT&T must now contemplate suing the FCC to challenge its discretion in blocking the merger. Such actions do not have a stellar track record. Likely, AT&T will have to make significant concessions in a new application for the merger, that will require AT&T to make more costly operational changes. In short, AT&T will have to commit to hiring and maintaining more workers in the United States than they wish to. This cost will likely be massive, as the Obama administration will require those job numbers to hold through for years to come.

Conversely, HTC has more problems in the long-term. HTC can easily back out of the S3 merger, with relatively small penalties in terms of an aborted merger. HTC was not intending to acquire S3 for its technology, but rather, patents that are not nearly worth what they were previously. HTC could counter-offer for a smaller acquisition, but it would have to be a mere fraction of what was previously offered. The problem for HTC is their white knight, that would force Apple to come to the settlement table, is now gone.

These problems will all affect the consumer. If AT&T cannot justify the newfound costs of a merger, it will mean more competition in the wireless industry. T-Mobile will be forced to re-hire an ongoing brain-drain of merger-fearing employees, and rebuild a plan to bring on new investors, or stand alone in the industry once again.

Similarly, HTC’s possible-abortion of the S3 acquisition could mark the beginning of talks to make a multi-billion dollar payout to Apple. If so, it will mean higher device costs for consumers, and also embolden Apple to begin pursuing other Android manufacturers. While Microsoft is making more money from Android patent pacts, than on Windows Phone 7 licenses, Apple could provide to make such arrangements cheap in comparison. In the end, Apple could be able to compete with smartphone manufacturers not just as a premium device provider, but ensure royalty costs lock out newcomers, as well as force entry-level smartphone costs to climb as well.

Virgin Mobile is playing to win in prepaid, but they’re burning their most savvy customers in a major way… and people are taking notice.

Putting it bluntly, Virgin Mobile is shortchanging their customers on firmware updates, compared to other carriers, and even Sprint’s own postpay brand. It’s not acceptable, it’s wrong, and it needs to be fixed. Read more for the examples, reasoning, and tough love.

It’s been a long time since we were the ones pushing for Firmware Over the Air. We’d like to think we changed the industry, just a little bit, by pushing carriers and manufacturers to embrace the practice. It finally came full circle a few weeks ago with the release of iOS 5, making Apple the last manufacturer to implement it.

Apple actually was doing okay with their iTunes-style over-the-wire updating, but the rest of the industry hasn’t done so well. Virgin Mobile is sadly, the latest culprit in mismanaging the maintenance of their devices.

When the LG Optimus V came out, it was not alone. In the Optimus One family of devices, LG touted that the whole family of devices would get Android 2.3, Gingerbread. And, they made good on that, the Optimus S on Sprint has been updated, for example. Same hardware across all these phones, so equal treatment by carriers, right? Wrong.

Virgin Mobile has informed PhoneNews.com that there are no plans to update the Optimus V to Gingerbread. It’s simply unethical. Forcing people to pick up a newer phone, just to get Gingerbread… especially when LG is happy to offer up the upgrade to the carrier!

From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense, albeit evil sense. If you deny the tech-savvy Gingerbread, they’ll go out and buy a new handset, and sell the old one on eBay. Thus, through price discrimination, you create a new market of super-cheap, used Android phones. Most people don’t care about firmware versions, so the eBay market will be saturated with super-cheap Optimus V’s that go for $50 to $75. More (new) customers for Virgin Mobile.

It doesn’t help things that the Optimus V is practically unusable at this point. The phone’s limited internal storage is gobbled up by a swath of almost-mandatory Google Apps updates. When you’re finished updating Google Maps, Google Search, Google Voice Search, Gmail, and YouTube… you’ve used up most of the phone’s internal storage. This is more of an architectural problem in Android (which will be fixed in Android 4, Ice Cream Sandwich), but updating the Optimus V to Gingerbread would make these updates more optional, and alleviate the problem.

Oh, wait, one more insult on the Optimus V. There are two firmware versions out there, and you can’t upgrade. LG issued initial units with firmware V4. Later they issued version V7 to correct problems with the radio (and disable mobile hotspot… left in the phone by mistake). Unfortunately, you can’t update to V7. Not only is it not offered over-the-air, but when you run LG Software Update… the update fails, every single time.

We’ve brought these issues to the attention of Virgin Mobile. They haven’t changed. We don’t want to see history repeat itself. So, we’re now standing on our somewhat high-class soap box, and we have a message…

… Virgin Mobile, get your act together on firmware, or hire us to manage it for you.

Research In Motion today made a series of announcements at its annual BlackBerry developer conference. PhoneNews.com was there and takes an in-depth look at the changes, both technical and in the competitive landscape, in this expanded report.

At today’s keynote, BlackBerry X (BBX) clearly took center stage, as expected. RIM needed to show that its developers have a future platform to target and build upon. Recent platform enhancements such as BlackBerry OS 7 have done little to improve consumer and developer confidence, often being compared to Symbian Anna; an update to a platform with no future.

Unfortunately, little was disclosed about BBX beyond its existing QNX and PlayBook underpinnings. The new BBX platform will essentially carry over innovations from the BlackBerry PlayBook platform to phones, and then unify all BlackBerry devices – phone and tablet, on one modern platform. RIM did tout that all the functionality on PlayBook will be carried over, including full Flash, Android compatibility, and multitasking of applications.

RIM did give developers a new platform to target, giving all attendees a BlackBerry PlayBook with beta 2.0 firmware. (Full disclosure, we got one too — more soon).

Competitively, BBX will bring RIM back to the table in terms of having both a competitive platform, and strong positioning against rivals. First, RIM will have the only Real Time OS that supports sideloading. Rival Apple enforces a walled garden over its real-time iOS, and Google’s Android runs a forked version of Java, limiting its ability to perform real-time multitasking.

Having a real-time OS that supports side loading may sound like geek to most, but it is important in wooing over tech-savvy consumers and evangelists, that look for less restrictions on devices. If RIM can win back these customers over iOS, Android, and Windows Phone, it will help RIM tremendously. The most informed wireless users, in recent years, have been the ones least likely to recommend RIM outside of corporate and security environments. This advent alone could turn that tide.

Additionally, RIM will continue to support Java, bridging a peace that will enable RIM to woo over Java embedded companies and services to support BlackBerry easily, as well as allow it to possibly be the only legitimate platform that runs Android applications. Oracle’s continued legal threats and litigation over the sustainability of the Android platform presents a huge risk to Android manufacturers.

Still, questions remain. RIM is still developing BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) for other platforms. No timeframe has been given for BBX, but all indications are BBX-powered phones will be announced early next year. Unlike Palm’s failure with webOS however, RIM does have a steady and stable platform that will continue to provide the funding necessary to emerge the platform without opening it up to third parties.

Finally BBX could emerge as a potent rival to Windows Phone and Android. With Windows Phone continuing to struggle in gaining traction, BlackBerry App World being a profitable App Store for developers, and Android remaining in legal turmoil, RIM could easily offer BBX to other manufacturers — if it wants to. The good news for RIM is, at least at this point, they don’t have to.

It’s rare we shake up our announced plans to run articles, but this editorial warrants it.

For too long now, MeeGo has sat in a state of flux. And, for too long, Ubuntu has sat looking for a viable direction into mobile. I tackle on my personal blog why both should sit down and hammer out a deal.

It has been far too long that the industry has been without a real-time OS that lacks walled gardens, and I’ll make my case for why this deal can work.

Editorial: Why Intel & Canonical Should Make A Deal for Ubuntu MeeGo

We like Palm, and we like HP. We’re even partners with them on some levels. However, the failure to properly follow through on their commitment to deliver webOS 2.0 for all webOS devices keeps getting worse. We can only bullet-point the chain of events at this point, in “graphic” detail below:

* Palm commits to webOS 2.0 for all devices. Notes that original Pixi on Sprint won’t get Flash.
* HP acquires Palm.
* HP announces new devices and announces webOS 3.0. Later that night, HP says Pre, Pre Plus, Pixi, Pixi Plus won’t get webOS 2.0 as previously promised.
* HP explains the next day that the devices couldn’t handle webOS 2.0 well, promises “something special” to make up for it down the road.
* O2 issues Palm Pre Plus update to webOS 2.1 in Europe. Flash and Voice Dialing are missing from the update.
* HP changes position to saying that “some devices” will not be updated to webOS 2.x. HP tacitly acknowledges the O2 European Pre Plus has been updated to webOS 2.1.
* HP changes position again, saying that it is up to carriers to decide if their Palm Pre (Plus) will be updated to webOS 2.1.
* AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon all fail to respond to PhoneNews.com requests as to if they will offer webOS 2.1 on their Palm Pre (Plus).

And now, you’re up to date. User pressure will likely determine if HP will offer a webOS 2.1 upgrade for the Pre and Pixi family in the United States at this point. The code base is clearly there to do it, however, the lack of Flash, Voice Dialing, and some apparent wish to treat the software as unsupported have HP and carrier relations strained. Clearly, HP wishes to devote carrier testing time to new devices, and not exhaust it on old devices that sell for $49 on Woot-style sites.

Considering the PR blunder that HP has run into with this experience however, and customers whose first impression of webOS may be a $50 Palm Pixi Plus, it is our opinion that the best thing HP could do is offer an unofficial webOS Doctor on their web site… and let the users decide which webOS to run on their devices.

It is unlikely, again, in our opinion, that carriers would cry foul over such a resolution.

As you may have heard today, Sprint will start assessing new fees for customers who swap 3G smartphones on Everything Plans after January 30th. Customers are facing a mandatory bill increase of $120/year for swapping phones they already own. If you haven’t seen our previous coverage, please read it first to avoid confusion.

Sprint has informed PhoneNews.com that they do not view this as a material change, as they are exempting warranty and insurance replacements of devices, so that customers who do not swap phones through their own initiative, will not be affected.

This puts us in a dilemma. For the untold thousands of people who swap out their $700 smartphones after the work week is done, you are materially impacted by this change. You now cannot use your service in the way Sprint advertised when you signed a two-year contract. Yet, Sprint is refusing to give you the option of cancelling service, and walking away amicably.

It’s no secret why Sprint is doing this. On one hand, their profit sharing with Clearwire has clearly failed thus far. On the other hand, Verizon is days away from launching iPhone 4. An ETF-Out at this time would cause hemorrhaging of customers to Verizon Wireless. Sprint would literally be better of being sued down the line, and losing a class action lawsuit, possibly years later when they themselves are selling iPhone or comparable devices.

And, that’s before you factor in the fallout on PhoneNews.com from Sprint, for all the stuff we just wrote above.

We’ve had experiences with situations where PhoneNews.com and the carrier don’t see eye to eye at all on the status of an ETF Out. On the other hand, we’ve gone the extra mile and worked with carriers when everyone is in agreement on the matter.

We don’t want to tell people that the best solution here is to dispute charges and wind up dealing with predatory debt collectors. We really don’t, and we’re speaking from experience there too. On the other hand, Verizon’s iPhone 4 is probably going to keep Sprint from changing their minds this time around.

In the past, we’ve started with FCC, BBB, and PUC complaints. To be honest, they haven’t worked in the past, and resulted in lip-service grade testimonials months and years afterwords. They certainly aren’t delivering the change we’ve believed in previously. Not that we’re telling you not to do that either.

So, we’re stuck here. We don’t have a good solution to this one. Many of you need to swap in a mil-spec feature phone when you go out into the wilderness… it’s how you live your life on the weekend. Do that after January 30, and your wireless bill will go up $120/year. We don’t roll that way often, but we certainly have G’zOne units in our office for the occasion. So, we know the dilemma you’re in right now.

We want your feedback on this, we want to hear what you have to say on how to move forward here.

It’s hard not to just start uttering a string of buzz words on the news of today’s Chrome OS netbook announcement. GOBI, CDMA, Verizon, Google, Net Neutrality, Netbooks, 100MBs. The list keeps going…

But, the biggest news has nothing to do with Chrome OS itself. Rather, it has to do with Google finally achieving their goal of free wireless data.

This, of course, means many different things to many different people. I’ll outline how it will change everything, again, after the break.

First a quick recap, in case you didn’t read our liveblog of the announcements. Chrome OS netbooks will ship with 100 MB of free data per-month, for at least the first two years of ownership.

Google’s choice of Verizon as a network partner for today’s data makes sense in the short run, but stands out in the long run. By using GOBI as the Chrome OS radio, Google was able to have all four carriers fight for who would offer free data. And, Verizon’s net neutrality pact gave them the win.

For those of you that didn’t read our coverage of Verizon’s net neutrality pact with Google, they essentially agreed to be net-neutral on wired data (DSL, FiOS, etc), while agreeing to be not net-neutral for wireless data. That pact allowed Google to get the data deal done with Verizon. Chrome OS netbooks will likely be prioritized below all other Verizon devices, especially when the customer is on the free data tier.

Many, including myself, thought this day would arrive with Sprint and Clearwire. Google’s massive cash infusion into WiMAX technology made free 4G seem the odds-on favorite, even if it was in an ad-supported infrastructure. That may still happen, but seeing as WiMAX deployment has slowed with the economy, Google obviously did not want to wait. This will further take steam out of Clearwire, and make it a more attractive acquisition target for Google.

Winner? Google. They get 3G today, and the potential to own not just their own network, but their own network technology in the 4G era. With what we’ve seen from WebM, WebP, and other massive acquisitions from Google, WiMAX could become a free checkbox feature in a plethora of devices.

But, let’s talk more about today. Now, netbook buyers will have 100 MB of data for free, and Chrome OS adoption will undoubtedly surge because of this. Microsoft has already cut Windows 7 Starter licensing razor-thin, and may now have to find some way to cut a similar deal, without hemorrhaging cash. That will take time, and in that time, Google will surge in user base.

What this will really change however, is web apps. Web site owners, developers, and app developers will be under intense pressure to cut their data utilization, and increase their usage of permanent caching stores and tactics. Essentially, customers/readers aren’t going to be pleased when a single web site eats up megabytes of data, Cookie Monster-style.

For at least the forseeable future, we’re going to see web sites, and web apps alike, take different tactics on how to deal with this problem. Many web site owners will simply be more mindful of data, opting for more-compressed images, links to high-bandwidth content, cautions, and warnings. It will also mean faster adoption of technologies like WebP that are specifically designed to cut the bandwidth that a web site uses.

More advanced sites however, will have more difficulty in deciding how to handle Chrome OS. One option is to offer up the mobile version of a site. However, something designed for a 320×240 pixel display isn’t going to look very elegant on a netbook.

The fallback position then becomes the “tablet view” for a site. If you’re already making an iPad-friendly UI, make a few tweaks and extend it to Chrome OS. This too, however, has pitfalls. A layout designed for an HTML5 multi-touch device is not going to run as well on a netbook, you’re going to have to make compromises or water down features to appease both devices.

Then, finally, is the notion of a Chrome OS Web App. This is where it appears that Google hopes most developers will go. Instead of shoehorning Chrome OS into one of the existing site layouts, Google hopes that developers will create a web app that has persistent, on-device storage for everything from layout to already-downloaded content. From there, AJAX pulls will simply flow in the new data, and a web site with megabytes of content can be refreshed in mere kilobytes. Even if you cleared your browser’s standard cache, or are running in privacy mode…

Of course, this means that developers will, once again, have to augment their app quiver. A serious high-value site must now have an App Store app (or iOS web app view), Android app (or WebKit app view), a tablet-friendly web view, and a Chrome OS app (or web view).

While many feared fragmentation of device app platforms, the real fear should be turned to fragmentation of where web developers must place their development dollars. Chrome OS will have to fit into a holistic development model in order to be accommodated in many budgets, and don’t even think that a standard for cross-platform web apps will result any time soon.

Google, Apple, and Microsoft (not to mention Nokia and HP) all want developers thinking in their company’s logic, and are going to be offering more and more integrated (and free) solutions like these to woo customers into convincing developers to follow their own respective development paths. Will we see an iPod touch 3G with free data from AT&T? If not, Verizon seems willing to deal.