iPhone day is upon us. Much has already been written about the iPhone despite the fact that only a handful of journalists have used it. One thing that is common among all reviews is the AT&T's EDGE network is slow. Perhaps it is faster now but EDGE is still no 3G.

Earlier this month at WWDC, Jobs told Apple's developers to develop web applications for the iPhone instead of releasing a SDK. Again, much had been written about how developers felt betrayed by Apple, and that web applications are not really applications at all. Despite all these resentments, a few iPhone only web sites have sprung up since WWDC. Unfortunately, none of them are particularly impressive or useful probably because no one has gotten their hands on a real iPhone yet, which kind of confirms what the developers feared; that web applications will not be as good as proper iPhone applications. There are exceptions, of course. NewsGator's online feed reader allows users to read their RSS feed via the web anywhere and sync with their desktop apps when they get home. Similarly, the latest version of Google Reader does the same.

With all the attention on iPhone only web apps, I think people are neglecting the regular web sites. Just because iPhone's Safari can render regular web sites fully and allows the users to navigate/zoom around the site with their fingers, it does not mean it provides the best user experience.

My prediction will be that as soon as all the new iPhone owners get home and start surfing to their favorite news site/blog/message board via EDGE connection, they will find that -- although they can do almost everything on that smaller screen -- it is not as easy as on the desktop computer. They will be disappointed and lots will be written on the web this weekend about how web surfing sucks on the iPhone using EDGE. And I will agree with them. Can you imagine loading and navigating cnet.com on the iPhone using EDGE?

So what can be done to improve the user experience? The solution is a concept that has existed ever since cell phones were able to connect to the internet; mobile versions of web sites. The idea of a stripped down version of the regular web site for a mobile phone is as old as HTML4/CSS2 themselves. Some of the best examples that I have used are Fandango, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Vox. What is so good about specificly tailored mobile web sites? First, they are designed with cell phone in mind so the site is generally formatted to fit the narrower screens. Second, because of limited bandwidth mobile, they strip out all extraneous graphics, animations, AJAX menus and buttons, Flash, and the like. so the page will load quickly. Third, and the most important of all, because of the previous two reasons these sites always focus on what the users want to do on the site. Whether it is to find movie times on Fandango, updates your current thoughts/activities on Twitter or Facebook, or read/compose blog on Vox, these sites let users get there and do it quickly and pleasantly.

Some of the big players in the web are already there. Both Yahoo and Google have mobile version of their sites, allowing quick access to search, emails, and other features. BBC has a PDA version, so does CNN. As the battleground shifts from desktop to mobile computing, web sites need to start thinking about how their sites look on a restricted device (be it a UMPC, iPhone, etc.) because it is no longer just about providing content or services. It is about how easy the users can access these content or services.

My hope is that the iPhone will finally make web developers pay more attention to the mobile experience of their web sites. Even if iPhone 1.0 disappoints, at least other mobile web users will benefit from improved user experience.