these icons look simple and clean I'd suggest one thing though, most of the objects appear to be standing straight but address-book,facebook,picture and calender seem to be falling behind.The view of the pin is totally different from other icons too.
I like the style and simplicity of the icons, just try to focus more on their consistency.Good Luck
You guys are talented, all of those who create icons, but if you look at stockicons.com, fasticons.com, yellowicons.com, or kombine, or glyphish, or pixelpress, that's where you go and look up stock icons that are worth paying for.
For this - good nice first try, keep practicing, but I wouldn't pay, nor use in any software for free… And also, why make 48x48? we go resolution-independent, yet every time still i see 32x32px or 48x48px icons…. Is this meant for Windows 2000? Or XP?! Make it scaleable at least.
Pixel-perfect icons are very useful. A 32px icon designed to be displayed at 32px looks way better in a toolbar than a 512px icon downscaled at 32px. The only - most likely - icons that need to be designed at each size from 16px to 512px are applications icons. If they have a more restricted purpose (toolbar icons, panel icons...etc), only a few sizes are needed. And pixel perfection doesn't necessarily mean each pixel has been drawn individually, it just means that each pixel has been carefully thought and is not here by chance.
Also, scalability in icon design is not that useful, actually. Only a very few styles can handle scalability, for the remaining ones - most of the styles - scalability is of no use. Because the icon would lack of details - details that hadn't been done in smaller sizes for the icon would have looked unclear - some strokes and lines would be too thick, etc...