All signs point to a worldwide rollout of the next iteration of the iPhone sometime soon, unlike the previous spotty and country-specific launches since the product was introduced last year.

For instance, the latest releases of iPhone Software 2.0 have included handwriting recognition for Traditional and Simplified Chinese, where drawing a character on the screen with your finger will get you prompts for four possible characters on the side of the screen.

Plans have also emerged for the release of the new iPhone in Japan, Russia, Mexico and Latin America, while Vodafone has confirmed it has won rights to distribute the iPhone in India, Australia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Portugal, New Zealand, South Africa and Turkey. T-Mobile will also release it in Austria and Italy.

No word on the Philippines yet, but hope springs eternal.

(Pic care of Ubergizmo)

Apple updated today Java for Mac OS X 10.5.2 (Update 1). What it does is it adds Java SE 6 Version 1.6.0_05, blah blah blah blah. Please note it just adds the new version and doesn’t change or replace the version you’re currently using (which should be Java SE Version 5). It’s for 64-bit Intel Macs only, so it won’t show up in Software Update if you don’t need the thing.

It’s available as a standalone 57mb download too (get it here), but eager-beaver-updaters (EBU) might make the mistake of installing it on non-qualified Macs like Power PCs and 32-bit Intels. In fact, the formal Apple blah-blah says:

This release is only for Mac OS X v10.5.2 and later, and should not be installed on earlier versions of Mac OS X. This release is for 64-bit Intel-based Macs only and cannot run on PowerPC-based or 32-bit Intel-based Macs.”

Like I said. So please don’t get carried away now.

Jesse Derris, an Account Manager at Sunshine Sachs & Associates, the PR group for Product(Red), got in touch with the Doodler to give the real story behind the previous post we wrote about the campaign. So as not to make any mistakes, we reproduce Mr. Derris’ reply here verbatim:

Hi Adel—

Realizing it might be difficult for us to speak on the phone, I wanted to write to you to correct some of the facts in your story regarding (RED). We’re so glad that you like the products!

First, (RED) products generate funds for the Global Fund to fight AIDS across Africa, not just in Rwanda. (RED) money is currently at work in Rwanda, Swaziland, and Ghana. While you’re right that a portion of sales of (RED) items goes the Global Fund, that portion is at least 40 percent of gross profits – a very large amount.

Up until this point, (RED) has generated more than $60 million for the Global Fund, $22 million of which is being used in Rwanda.

The Advertising Age story you quote in your post is from March 2007, almost a year ago. That story accused (RED) partners of spending upwards of $100 million on advertising and generating only $18 million for the Global Fund. However, both numbers are false. Advertising Age has never revealed the source of the numbers they used, nor how they were calculated. In short, we have no idea where they came from.

Now, back in March 2007, the actual figures were an estimated $50 million spent on advertising, generating $25 million for the Global Fund. This is a very successful figure. Why?

The amount of money that went to the Global Fund at that point – $25 million – represents 40 percent of the profits. Remember, the companies get to keep the other 60 percent of their profits. The reason we do this is because (RED) is a business model that is meant to help companies give to the Global Fund and make a profit at the same time. By ensuring that companies profit on their (RED) partnership, we can make it sustainable in the long run. Unfortunately, when Advertising Age calculated their figures, they left out the other 60 percent of profits.

It is important to point out that (RED) itself doesn’t spend anything on advertising. Our partners each divert a portion of their existing advertising budget towards ads for their (RED) products. It is money that will be spent on advertising whether or not (RED) exists. It’s not money that would be earmarked for charity. We’re so grateful to our partners for advertising on our behalf.

I hope this is helpful in explaining what (RED) is and how we are doing.”

That’s that. Straight out of the horse’s mouth. Now to get that red nano.

I love Product(RED) items. Particularly the ones from Apple - the red iPod nano has always been something I’ve wanted. I even got the matching V-Moda Vibe earphones ready and waiting. As Wayne Campbell said, she will be mine. Oh yes, she will be mine.

The specially-made items are, if you don’t know, editions meant to generate charity funds to fight AIDS and HIV in Rwanda. A portion of the sales from the (RED) items like watches, cellphones, laptops, t-shirts, colognes, credit cards - and iPods - go to this fund. For example, Motorola contributes US$8.50 for each sale of the (RED) Razr, Gap gives 50% of their net profit from (RED) clothing items, and Amex gives 1% of all transactions from their (RED) card. A couple editions of the iPod nano have been made for this campaign, started a year ago by Bono.

After the first year, consumers have generated US$22M for Rwanda, but controversy is heating about the figures, which detractors claim is grossly misrepresented.

Advertising Age magazine reports that the entire campaign has raised only US$18M, but has spent US$100M in advertising collectively. People organizing the campaign claim that they’ve raised US$22M, and have only spent US$50M in advertising. Huh? Ex-squeeze me? Baking powder?

Whatever the case, it’s apparent that they spent more than they raised - and people say that the cause would have been better served if the money spent advertising was given straight to the cause in the first place. Of course, no one really knew this coming in a year ago, but maybe a bit of research and planning might have made the project a bit more worthwhile.

At least they made nice iPods, huh?

More on the issue from The New York Times.

You guys might remember a post I did a week ago about Apple updating an update a week after it was first released (if you don’t remember, it’s here), and downplaying the fact that it did?

Using the wise old tactic of not calling attention to a mistake by not mentioning it in case no one really caught it in the first place, Apple just went ahead and fixed Security Update 2007-009 and quietly re-issued the corrected update, which was V.1.1, a week later.

If you want to know, what actually happened was that a number of users reported that Safari crashed when visiting certain websites after the patch was installed. Apple said,

Security Update 2007-009 v1.1 addresses an issue introduced in Security Update 2007-009 that may cause Safari to unexpectedly quit when browsing to certain websites”

This was an across-the-board glitch, which hosed Safari on Tiger, Leopard and Windows for some users. So Apple patched the patch and sent it out again. Apple screwed up. They went and fixed it. Mystery solved.