|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > AT-T wireless service > August 2007 > Re: Apple cuts back production (iPhone)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Apple cuts back production (iPhone)
|
|
|
| tavenger5 wrote:
<snip>
> You are obviously not aware of other phones on the market then.
A _lot_ of people got caught up in the hype of iPhone launch, people
that don't understand about 2G versus 3G, about international roaming
versus prepaid SIM cards, about the ability to run PDA applications,
etc. Some bought the iPhone knowing full-well what its limitations were,
and didn't care.
It _is_ probably the best hand held device for Wi-Fi web browsing, and
it probably works as well as any GSM-only phone in the U.S.. You just
don't want to buy it thinking you're getting a full-function PDA or 3G
web browser or HSDPA access device.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name has gone
away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
AT&T's Wireless Service.]
| |
|
| In article < 46b422e9$0$27165$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> tavenger5 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> A _lot_ of people got caught up in the hype of iPhone launch, people
> that don't understand about 2G versus 3G, about international roaming
> versus prepaid SIM cards, about the ability to run PDA applications,
> etc. Some bought the iPhone knowing full-well what its limitations were,
> and didn't care.
>
> It _is_ probably the best hand held device for Wi-Fi web browsing, and
> it probably works as well as any GSM-only phone in the U.S.. You just
> don't want to buy it thinking you're getting a full-function PDA or 3G
> web browser or HSDPA access device.
>
My "full-function PDA" Treo doesn't work half as well as my wife's
iPhone.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-08-06, 10:33 pm |
| "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-FCC577.14522106082007@news.giganews.com...
> In article < 46b422e9$0$27165$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> My "full-function PDA" Treo doesn't work half as well as my wife's
> iPhone.
>
> --
> To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Better go get one before they stop production.
| |
|
| In article <F0Nti.3182$AC7.2522@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
> "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
> news:labolide-FCC577.14522106082007@news.giganews.com...
>
>
> Better go get one before they stop production.
Have one. Will buy another this month. Treo was pain this last trip, had
to keep borrowing wife's iPhone. Have you ever used an iPhone and PDA
side-by-side and compared how they work?
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| Kurt wrote:
> In article <F0Nti.3182$AC7.2522@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> Have one. Will buy another this month. Treo was pain this last trip, had
> to keep borrowing wife's iPhone. Have you ever used an iPhone and PDA
> side-by-side and compared how they work?
For web browsing the iPhone is much better. If you need to do e-mail, or
use other PDA functions, the Treo (or Blackberry) is much better.
| |
|
| In article < 46b7b61d$0$27219$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Kurt wrote:
>
> For web browsing the iPhone is much better. If you need to do e-mail, or
> use other PDA functions, the Treo (or Blackberry) is much better.
You know how it is when you were once thrilled with something and then
something else came along and changed the way you felt things had to be?
iPhone did this to me.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-08-06, 10:33 pm |
| "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-36A857.16195606082007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <F0Nti.3182$AC7.2522@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> Have one. Will buy another this month. Treo was pain this last trip, had
> to keep borrowing wife's iPhone. Have you ever used an iPhone and PDA
> side-by-side and compared how they work?
>
> --
> To reply by email, remove the word "space"
You could not give me a iphone.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-08-07, 7:33 am |
| In article <labolide-8D938B.17385306082007@news.giganews.com>,
Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>
> You know how it is when you were once thrilled with something and then
> something else came along and changed the way you felt things had to be?
> iPhone did this to me.
In other words, YOU never needed a PDA to begin with.
What YOU needed all along was a portable web browser, a superior one,
with no other functions.
| |
|
| In article <UdPti.44497$Um6.10375@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
> "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
> news:labolide-36A857.16195606082007@news.giganews.com...
>
> You could not give me a iphone.
'Nuff said. :-)
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <elmop-D96079. 07284407082007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <labolide-8D938B.17385306082007@news.giganews.com>,
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> In other words, YOU never needed a PDA to begin with.
>
> What YOU needed all along was a portable web browser, a superior one,
> with no other functions.
No, I use many of my PDA functions. I just don't like how they work.
What is there on a PDA besides voice, email, text, & web (camera doesn't
really count) that you shouldn't be doing on your laptop. Word or Excel
on a PDA? Only in desperation.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-08, 4:33 am |
| At 07 Aug 2007 08:29:34 -0700 Kurt wrote:
> No, I use many of my PDA functions. I just don't like how they work.
> What is there on a PDA besides voice, email, text, & web (camera
> doesn't really count)
What about PIM data and the ability to sync it remotely with your office
(or home)?
What about GPS/Nav? (And no, Google Maps with no GPS capability isn't a
substitute!)
> that you shouldn't be doing on your laptop.
IMHO, you're completely missing the point- ideally the PDA should be able
to replace your laptop when traveling. T ere's nothing more liberating
tan traveling with just my phone, a charger, my GPS module (uses the same
mini-USB charger as the phone!) and a small pair of headphones. Laptop?
We don't need no steenking laptop! ;-)
> Word or Excel
> on a PDA? Only in desperation.
I'm certainly not going to setup a complex spreadsheet from scratch or
write the Great American Novel on my PPC, but editing documents on the
fly is certainly handy. I've certainly used Excel on my PPC for data
collection to be transferred to a PC later.
| |
| Tinman 2007-08-08, 12:33 pm |
| "Todd Allcock" wrote:
> At 07 Aug 2007 08:29:34 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
>
>
> What about PIM data and the ability to sync it remotely with your office
> (or home)?
>
Syncing remotely doesn't define what a PDA is or is not. I only used that on
my PPC when I entered a lot of info on it and was afraid it might crash
(which I had been bitten by in the past--more than once). If I hadn't
worried about crashing I would never have gone through the effort of setting
up remote syncing.
As far as PIM data, I don't see what the problem is. Without a doubt I
prefer the contacts app over Winmob's. It compares acceptably to my (Palm)
Treo's too. Calendar does its job as well. Email works as well or better
than on the PPCs or Treos I've owned, the last being a Palm Treo. No longer
do I have to endure Versamail, which reset the my Treo after
reading/deleting more than 5-10 emails in one session (and once it started
the only way to fix it was to restore Versamail from a backup).
The only thing it doesn't have yet is to-do, which I didn't use much anyway
(though there is at least one to-do widget available).
Moreover I have been a PDA user since the Newton (I owned plenty of
"organizers" before that too). I had no problem adapting to the iPhone.
> What about GPS/Nav? (And no, Google Maps with no GPS capability isn't a
> substitute!)
That is not a PDA function. Plenty of non-PDA phones have (real) GPS and
that doesn't make them a PDA.
That said the ease of Google maps on the iPhone, along with its seamless
integration with Contacts, has been "good enough" that I no longer carry my
all-in-one GPS on trips, which I mainly used for routing. I totally trashed
the iPhone's lack of GPS and reliance on Google Maps before buying one for
myself. Yes I had Google Maps on my Treo, but it's just different on the
iPhone. YMMV.
--
Mike
| |
|
| In article <f9bk3o$u5$1@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 07 Aug 2007 08:29:34 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
>
>
> What about PIM data and the ability to sync it remotely with your office
> (or home)?
>
> What about GPS/Nav? (And no, Google Maps with no GPS capability isn't a
> substitute!)
I have an inexpensive small Garmin, one that I can move from car to car
and has a screen I can actually read and use while I drive. I barely use
the GPS as it is - though good for strange cities.
>
>
> IMHO, you're completely missing the point- ideally the PDA should be able
> to replace your laptop when traveling. T ere's nothing more liberating
> tan traveling with just my phone, a charger, my GPS module (uses the same
> mini-USB charger as the phone!) and a small pair of headphones. Laptop?
> We don't need no steenking laptop! ;-)
I have a small Mac laptop. Too much work to have all that I do going
through my Treo. So much easier to do things on plane or when I arrive.
I'm also not one of those people who is glued to my phone, either. I
have my priorities.
>
>
>
>
> I'm certainly not going to setup a complex spreadsheet from scratch or
> write the Great American Novel on my PPC, but editing documents on the
> fly is certainly handy. I've certainly used Excel on my PPC for data
> collection to be transferred to a PC later.
I also don't have a job that requires me to have to do all that.
I have the luxury of doing things when more convenient. I'm not the guy
furiously text messaging and emailing the minute the plane hits the
ground.
To work on original files on my Mac is so much easier and a much more
efficient use of my time. I've been in business for myself for too many
years to let me be a slave to technology. You must find tools that free
you from work, not make you do more (which, I'll admit, is hard to do
these days).
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-08, 12:33 pm |
| At 08 Aug 2007 08:44:59 -0700 Kurt wrote:
> I have an inexpensive small Garmin, one that I can move from car to car
> and has a screen I can actually read and use while I drive. I barely
use
> the GPS as it is - though good for strange cities.
I prefer having intergration with real-time traffic and POI data, a la
Google Maps or WLS, but to each his own...
> I have a small Mac laptop. Too much work to have all that I do going
> through my Treo. So much easier to do things on plane or when I arrive.
> I'm also not one of those people who is glued to my phone, either. I
> have my priorities.
Agreed- I use my phone less as phone than as a "laptop."
> I also don't have a job that requires me to have to do all that.
>
> I have the luxury of doing things when more convenient. I'm not the guy
> furiously text messaging and emailing the minute the plane hits the
> ground.
Nor am I- I own a small business, howeve, and have to be available
whenever or wherever the excrement hits the proverbial fan.
> To work on original files on my Mac is so much easier and a much more
> efficient use of my time. I've been in business for myself for too many
> years to let me be a slave to technology. You must find tools that free
> you from work, not make you do more (which, I'll admit, is hard to do
> these days).
But that's what the phone allows- as long as I can conduct business
anywhere, I can BE anywhere. I got home last night after 10 days in the
Bay Area. Thanks to my PPC phone and access to all my files and data, it
didn't matter where I was physically. No "I don't have that information
with me" or "I'll check on that when I get back to the office." I can
still duck a call or turn off the phone if I want to be "off the clock",
so it's not enslaving- it's liberating to be free to work wherever I
happen to be.
But, as always, YMMV- if what you have works for you, that's cool. If
one product or service worked for everyone, we wouldn't need choices.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> IMHO, you're completely missing the point- ideally the PDA should be able
> to replace your laptop when traveling. T ere's nothing more liberating
> tan traveling with just my phone, a charger, my GPS module (uses the same
> mini-USB charger as the phone!) and a small pair of headphones. Laptop?
> We don't need no steenking laptop! ;-)
That is precisely the point. A full featured PDA/Phone will free you
from taking the laptop in many cases. I.e. my PDA can hook to a
projector or VGA monitor and show PowerPoint slides. It can serve as a
GPS with the CompactFlash GPS module (but I have to carry a set of
amplified speakers such as used on MP3 players). The web browser is
poor, and it's not a phone.
The HTC devices look like they are finally getting the convergence into
a single device, and Apple will probably get there eventually as well
with future iPhone models.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-09, 3:33 pm |
| At 09 Aug 2007 10:48:47 -0700 SMS wrote:
> The HTC devices look like they are finally getting the convergence
> into a single device, and Apple will probably get there eventually as
> well with future iPhone models.
I suspect Apple will, when they broaden the iPhone line in the future.
Since no one convergence device will suit everyone's needs (see HTC's
fairly broad range, for example) the iPhone line will need to expand to
be anything other than a niche product.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
| In article <ZlJui.1742$ZU1.721@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 09 Aug 2007 10:48:47 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>
> I suspect Apple will, when they broaden the iPhone line in the future.
> Since no one convergence device will suit everyone's needs (see HTC's
> fairly broad range, for example) the iPhone line will need to expand to
> be anything other than a niche product.
>
I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-08-09, 10:33 pm |
| In article <labolide-78C05A.13475609082007@news.giganews.com>,
Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".
Apple owns 80% of whatever market the iPhone is in?
That's news to....everyone.
| |
| PCs Rule 2007-08-09, 10:33 pm |
|
"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-78C05A.13475609082007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <ZlJui.1742$ZU1.721@fe085.usenetserver.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".
>
>
Does someone have a hard time coping with the fact they got screwed out of
$600?
| |
|
| In article <elmop-5B39AD. 17214009082007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <labolide-78C05A.13475609082007@news.giganews.com>,
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Apple owns 80% of whatever market the iPhone is in?
>
> That's news to....everyone.
Not "owns" but has the features that 80% of all cell phones users
primarily use and want. Not exactly a product designed for a small group
of users.
The uber-PDA that the other poster was drooling over will be confined to
a very small audience.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-08-09, 10:33 pm |
| "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-7DECE0.14541209082007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <elmop-5B39AD. 17214009082007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not "owns" but has the features that 80% of all cell phones users
> primarily use and want. Not exactly a product designed for a small group
> of users.
>
> The uber-PDA that the other poster was drooling over will be confined to
> a very small audience.
>
> --
The same way you drool over your iphone huh ?
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-09, 10:33 pm |
| At 09 Aug 2007 13:47:56 -0700 Kurt wrote:
to[color=darkred]
> I wouldn't call 80% of the market "niche".
80% of what market? 80% of the cellphone market wouldn't take an iPhone,
(or Treo, Blackberry, or WinMo phone) if they were free- simply because a
large percentage of the market has different priorities-like small
phones. The large display of the iPhone makes it undesirable to the size-
is-everything crowd. The lack of tactile numeric buttons makes it
undesirable to the "I just want a phone to make calls" crowd.
The iPhone is too high-end to cature 80% of the market- Apple sells more
Nanos than iPod Videos, right? Not until they offer a $99 (subsidized,
of course) Nano-phone will Apple take a significant chunk of the
cellphone market away from Nokia or Motorola.
Both of those companies understand that the cellphone wars are fought on
two fronts- decent low-end, low-margin entry-level phones for emerging
markets and first-time buyers to create brand-loyalty, and high-end, high-
margin phones to make money. This is why Motorola is having trouble-
the sucess of the RAZR is killing them as it crossed from being a high-
end phone to a low-margin one- they don't sell enough high-end handsets
to offset the popular RAZR's now "RAZR-thin" margins.
Can Apple succeed with only high-end products? Sure- but only as a niche
player, like RIM, Palm, or HTC is.
Wolfgang Puck is successful in his own right, and serves much better food
than McDonald's, but if I had Ray Kroc's money, I could afford to throw
Wolfgang's money away!
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-09, 10:33 pm |
| At 09 Aug 2007 14:54:12 -0700 Kurt wrote:
> Not "owns" but has the features that 80% of all cell phones users
> primarily use and want.
Rolls Royce has the features 100% of car buyers want (ok, 99%- it's lacks
affordability!) but Hyundai outsells them everyday.
But I'll even disagree with your "80%" figure- where's the tactile
keyboard? Judging by the popularity of Blackberries, Treos, the Blackjack,
Dash, Sidekick, and Q, QWERTY keyboards are a very desired feature
despite how well the iPhone touchscreen works. My old joke about my PPC
phone, when people would ask me what I could do with it, was "I can
browse the web, e-mail, watch movies, play MP3s, GPS- everything but make
a phone call!" because touchscreens are simply inferior to a 12-key
dialpad for dialing a phone!
> Not exactly a product designed for a small group
> of users.
I disagree. Despite our willingness to be geeks, there's a large market
segment that (*gasp*) has absolutely no interest in mobile web usage.
For them, it's just an iPod phone, hampered as a phone by lack of buttons.
> The uber-PDA that the other poster was drooling over will be confined
to
> a very small audience.
Absolutely. I (nor HTC) would ever expect otherwise. It's too big and
complex for "just a phone" users. It's essentially a mini-laptop running
a non-desktop OS that happens to have a phone built-in. A VERY niche
product, which is why HTC (and Nokia, and Motorola, et al) make more than
one model of phone- because the cellphone market has matured into a
variety of niches (features, form factor, style, etc.) Frequent texters
want a different input method, like QWERTY, than an elderly person who
might want big buttons with large numbers, for example. Neither group
will be especially satisfied with your iPhone.
But, using your argument, that the iPhone has "the features that 80% of
all cell phone users primarily use and want" then the Kaiser must do all
100% because it does everything the iPhone can do (although some not as
elegantly) and much more.
Realistically, neither is destined to have a large market share, given
their unusual design (although very pretty, the iPhone isn't exactly as
easy to dial as a garden variety push-button phone), large size
(relatively), and high price tags. Like the Rolls Royce I alluded to
above, neither the Kaiser nor the iPhone will sell as many units as a low-
end RAZR or Nokia's Series 40 line. That's the nature of a big-ticket
niche product.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
| In article <goOui.6520$Oh3.2005@fe111.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 09 Aug 2007 14:54:12 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
>
> Rolls Royce has the features 100% of car buyers want (ok, 99%- it's lacks
> affordability!) but Hyundai outsells them everyday.
>
> But I'll even disagree with your "80%" figure- where's the tactile
> keyboard? Judging by the popularity of Blackberries, Treos, the Blackjack,
> Dash, Sidekick, and Q, QWERTY keyboards are a very desired feature
> despite how well the iPhone touchscreen works. My old joke about my PPC
> phone, when people would ask me what I could do with it, was "I can
> browse the web, e-mail, watch movies, play MP3s, GPS- everything but make
> a phone call!" because touchscreens are simply inferior to a 12-key
> dialpad for dialing a phone!
>
>
> I disagree. Despite our willingness to be geeks, there's a large market
> segment that (*gasp*) has absolutely no interest in mobile web usage.
> For them, it's just an iPod phone, hampered as a phone by lack of buttons.
>
>
> to
>
> Absolutely. I (nor HTC) would ever expect otherwise. It's too big and
> complex for "just a phone" users. It's essentially a mini-laptop running
> a non-desktop OS that happens to have a phone built-in. A VERY niche
> product, which is why HTC (and Nokia, and Motorola, et al) make more than
> one model of phone- because the cellphone market has matured into a
> variety of niches (features, form factor, style, etc.) Frequent texters
> want a different input method, like QWERTY, than an elderly person who
> might want big buttons with large numbers, for example. Neither group
> will be especially satisfied with your iPhone.
>
> But, using your argument, that the iPhone has "the features that 80% of
> all cell phone users primarily use and want" then the Kaiser must do all
> 100% because it does everything the iPhone can do (although some not as
> elegantly) and much more.
>
> Realistically, neither is destined to have a large market share, given
> their unusual design (although very pretty, the iPhone isn't exactly as
> easy to dial as a garden variety push-button phone), large size
> (relatively), and high price tags. Like the Rolls Royce I alluded to
> above, neither the Kaiser nor the iPhone will sell as many units as a low-
> end RAZR or Nokia's Series 40 line. That's the nature of a big-ticket
> niche product.
>
Elegantly and easily are the key. 3 of my friends had no prior interest
in a web-based phone with email because of the PDA stigma. Apple changed
that. Easier to dial than on my Treo.
A whole new segment of the market is now excited about web and email pon
a phone.
Maybe that will translate into some business for the other PDAs
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <LgMui.13461$eY.9449@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>,
"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
> "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
> news:labolide-7DECE0.14541209082007@news.giganews.com...
>
> The same way you drool over your iphone huh ?
Absolutely. So who up here is actually buying a Kaiser immediately?
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <5ZLui.56806$5j1.48327@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
"PCs Rule" <nospam@swbell.net> wrote:
> "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
> news:labolide-78C05A.13475609082007@news.giganews.com...
> Does someone have a hard time coping with the fact they got screwed out of
> $600?
Don't shed any tears for us. One of my clients just bought 10 for his
company today. Oh, the humanity...
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-09, 10:33 pm |
| At 09 Aug 2007 19:13:16 -0700 Kurt wrote:
> Absolutely. So who up here is actually buying a Kaiser immediately?
As much as I'm drooling over it, I won't buy one immediately for many of
the same reasons I wouldn't buy an iPhone- it's not enough of an feature
improvement over my current phone to justify the cost. My HTC Wizard is
only 18 months old, is running WM6, and has most of the Kaiser's features
(the Wiz lacks internal GPS, but I already have an external one, it has
less RAM/ROM, the screen doesn't tilt and it lacks 3G, which my carrier,
T-Mo, doesn't offer yet.)
While I, like many, am distracted by shiny objects, my phone is a
business tool, and I simply can't justify spending hard-earned money for
incremental upgrades, and I have an unwritten personal rule that I ought
to get two to three years out of a high-end phone (although I never sign
two-year contracts- another personal rule.)
If my Wizard died or was lost, I'd take a hard look at the Kaiser,
particularly if I could convince T-Mobile to give me an account credit
for a year's renewal in lieu of a subsidized phone like I did 18 months
ago.
In a perfect world, my Wizard will last another year or so until T-Mo
gets 3G in place and offers their subsidized version of the Kaiser (or
it's successor)- preferably one that also does UMA for T-Mo's
Hotspots@Home "GoIP" (GSM over IP) service.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-09, 10:33 pm |
| At 09 Aug 2007 19:10:11 -0700 Kurt wrote:
> Elegantly and easily are the key. 3 of my friends had no prior interest
> in a web-based phone with email because of the PDA stigma. Apple
changed
> that.
Honestly, did "Apple" really change that? Or did the hype and marketing
surrounding the iPhone do it? I know many people with POP/IMAP capable
phones that had no idea they could get their e-mail on their phone- they
just assumed "regular" phones only did texting, and and it took a
Blackberry or a Treo to do e-mail. I just set up e-mail on one of my
wife's co-worker's two year-old Treo because she saw my wife reading her
e-mail on her T-Mo Dash.
IMHO, the best thing about the iPhone is the attention it brought to
features we geeks have took for granted for a long time. If AT&T's
salespeople are up to the task, they'll sell a lot of cheaper MP3 and e-
mail capable phones (like the Blackjack and Sync) to "looky-loos"
checking out the iPhone but balking at a $500 investment.
> Easier to dial than on my Treo.
Fair enough, big virtual buttons beat tiny half numeric/half alpha ones.
However, QWERTY-based keyboards are hardly the gold standard of easy
dialing- that's still the dialpad's forte. I prefer dialing on my
Wizard's touchscreen than on the 4mm square keys on my wife's Dash, but
neither is as easy as ANY of my non-Smartphones (except the ridiculous
circular keypad on my old Nokia 3650- WTF was Nokia thinking in 2003?)
> A whole new segment of the market is now excited about web and email
> on a phone.
> Maybe that will translate into some business for the other PDAs
A case of the high tide raising all boats? Probably.
It's a sad commentary on the entire cellular industry that those iPhone
commercials get away with presenting features like web, media players, e-
mail and Google Maps like they're groundbreaking to have on a phone, when
the 60+ million RAZRs, ROKRs and KRZRs out there, never mind the
smartphones, can already do most or all of it to some degree.
(Again, I accept your premise that the iPhone does it "better" or "easier",
but that's not the message the commercials seem to deliver- they
illustrate the amazing things the phone can do- not how easy it does
them.)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| George Kerby 2007-08-10, 7:33 am |
|
On 8/9/07 10:08 PM, in article zTQui.16548$b_6.6194@fe087.usenetserver.com,
"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 09 Aug 2007 19:10:11 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
> changed
>
> Honestly, did "Apple" really change that? Or did the hype and marketing
> surrounding the iPhone do it? I know many people with POP/IMAP capable
> phones that had no idea they could get their e-mail on their phone- they
> just assumed "regular" phones only did texting, and and it took a
> Blackberry or a Treo to do e-mail. I just set up e-mail on one of my
> wife's co-worker's two year-old Treo because she saw my wife reading her
> e-mail on her T-Mo Dash.
>
> IMHO, the best thing about the iPhone is the attention it brought to
> features we geeks have took for granted for a long time. If AT&T's
> salespeople are up to the task, they'll sell a lot of cheaper MP3 and e-
> mail capable phones (like the Blackjack and Sync) to "looky-loos"
> checking out the iPhone but balking at a $500 investment.
>
>
>
> Fair enough, big virtual buttons beat tiny half numeric/half alpha ones.
> However, QWERTY-based keyboards are hardly the gold standard of easy
> dialing- that's still the dialpad's forte. I prefer dialing on my
> Wizard's touchscreen than on the 4mm square keys on my wife's Dash, but
> neither is as easy as ANY of my non-Smartphones (except the ridiculous
> circular keypad on my old Nokia 3650- WTF was Nokia thinking in 2003?)
>
>
>
>
> A case of the high tide raising all boats? Probably.
>
> It's a sad commentary on the entire cellular industry that those iPhone
> commercials get away with presenting features like web, media players, e-
> mail and Google Maps like they're groundbreaking to have on a phone, when
> the 60+ million RAZRs, ROKRs and KRZRs out there, never mind the
> smartphones, can already do most or all of it to some degree.
>
> (Again, I accept your premise that the iPhone does it "better" or "easier",
> but that's not the message the commercials seem to deliver- they
> illustrate the amazing things the phone can do- not how easy it does
> them.)
>
>
Welcome to the world of "Marketing"! Never before was it done - so Apple was
just smarter than Moto, Nokia, and the rest of the pack left behind.
| |
| Tinman 2007-08-10, 10:33 am |
| "Todd Allcock" wrote:
>
> Honestly, did "Apple" really change that? Or did the hype and marketing
> surrounding the iPhone do it? I know many people with POP/IMAP capable
> phones that had no idea they could get their e-mail on their phone- they
> just assumed "regular" phones only did texting, and and it took a
> Blackberry or a Treo to do e-mail. I just set up e-mail on one of my
> wife's co-worker's two year-old Treo because she saw my wife reading her
> e-mail on her T-Mo Dash.
>
I think you helped illustrate why iPhones' features will get used by more of
its owners, on a percentage basis, than not only regular phones but
smartphones too. *Plenty* of Treo owners, for instance, are like your wife's
friend: they might own one, but really don't use most of its features. Three
of my wife's close friends have Treos. All three have never even connected
them to a computer. I've seen this many times with business users--even IT
business users.
Apple has ensured iPhones will get connected as you have to activate them
via iTunes. AT&T store reps can't do a thing with the iPhone. They can't
even open the box (heck, they have to place the iPhone in a special bag and
seal it). This prevents people from buying it, getting it activated in the
store (possibly at the insistence of an at&t store employee), and walking
out--never fully using the device to its potential. This was, no doubt,
intentional on Apple's part.
I am seeing a whole new group of people actually "using" the iPhone. Many of
them are young, and not your traditional geek/gadget buyer type of person.
I've seen people who never owned a smartphone before using, for instance,
Jailbreak to get into their iPhone, SSH, etc. From this group I've learned
about things common in the iPod world, but not as well known to me. Like
skins for instance. Never used one of those things before. But with all of
the skin talk in the iPhone community I ended up buying one (Best Skins
Ever). It's great. I use Crystal film on the screen, so only used the BSE
for the body. Great combo BTW.
OTOH I've also seen a lot of former Blackberry, Winmob, and Treo users who
now own iPhones.
I've also seen more business users than I anticipated. I am not alone:
"Already many enterprises in the U.S. are asking Sybase and its partners for
ways to use the iPhone for corporate messaging. Such inquiries are also
coming from Europe, where the iPhone is not even yet available."
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2519&tag=nl.e505
> IMHO, the best thing about the iPhone is the attention it brought to
> features we geeks have took for granted for a long time. If AT&T's
> salespeople are up to the task, they'll sell a lot of cheaper MP3 and e-
> mail capable phones (like the Blackjack and Sync) to "looky-loos"
> checking out the iPhone but balking at a $500 investment.
>
If someone really wants an iPhone that's what they'll get it.
--
Mike
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-10, 12:33 pm |
| At 10 Aug 2007 08:16:32 -0700 Tinman wrote:
> I think you helped illustrate why iPhones' features will get used by
> more of its owners, on a percentage basis, than not only regular phones
> but smartphones too.
Sure- I think it's because you're more likely to fully use the features
of a $600 product than a $99 one.
> *Plenty* of Treo owners, for instance, are like your wife's
> friend: they might own one, but really don't use most of its features.
Agreed, but it's not always due to ignorance. A good friend of mine
bought a Treo 600 in Europe before T-Mo USA even started carrying them
specifically to stop carrying two devices. He didn't want mobile internet
or e-mail (he still doesn't have a data plan)- he just wanted his Palm
PDA and his phone in the same device.
> Apple has ensured iPhones will get connected as you have to activate
them
> via iTunes. AT&T store reps can't do a thing with the iPhone. They
can't
> even open the box (heck, they have to place the iPhone in a special bag
and
> seal it). This prevents people from buying it, getting it activated in
the
> store (possibly at the insistence of an at&t store employee), and
walking
> out--never fully using the device to its potential. This was, no doubt,
> intentional on Apple's part.
Sure it was intentional, but not for the reasons you think! The main
reason is a "smoke-and-mirrors" way of punctuating the idea that this is
so "different" from any other cell phone- look it comes in it's own
special bag... look you activate it at home on your computer...
Similarly, the Toyota Prius used a goofy push-button starter for the same
reason- to pound the idea into your head the first time you use it that
it isn't like any other car, not because that method had any particular
advantage over the traditional one...
And, as a bonus, it prevents Apple stores from having to become AT&T
agents (faxing contracts, calling activations in, etc.)
Other than moving the lines quicker on openng weekend, iTunes activation
is actually a pretty stupid idea. It would seem to me that in-store
phone activation would make more sense since any PHONE related issues or
questions could be handled at the store by (hopefully) knowledgeable
individuals in a two way dialog, rather than ticking boxes for plns and
add-ons on your computer.
iTunes would be used for the "iPod" portion of the device since there's
no other real way to get your music on it anyway, so obviously it's going
to get hooked up to a computer!
> I am seeing a whole new group of people actually "using" the iPhone.
> Many of them are young, and not your traditional geek/gadget buyer
> type of person.
Again, as I mentioned earlier- I've yet to see a single iPhone user
outside of an Apple store, so I can't describe the typical iPhone user
(except maybe as "elusive," or "nebulous.")
> If someone really wants an iPhone that's what they'll get it.
My point was that I'm not sure many really want an iPhone, but rather
might want to do a few things that it does, and for far less than $500.
Apple might have capitalized on the lousy job the wireless industry had
done promoting it's features, but the rest of the industry, particularly
carriers without the iPhone, will fix that going forward.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Tinman 2007-08-10, 12:33 pm |
| "Todd Allcock" wrote:
> At 10 Aug 2007 08:16:32 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>
> Sure- I think it's because you're more likely to fully use the features
> of a $600 product than a $99 one.
That's silly and doesn't take into account the fact that many people with
smartphones paid $500+ and still don't use them.
>
> them
> can't
> and
> the
> walking
>
> Sure it was intentional, but not for the reasons you think! The main
> reason is a "smoke-and-mirrors" way of punctuating the idea that this is
> so "different" from any other cell phone- look it comes in it's own
> special bag... look you activate it at home on your computer...
That is merely your questionable opinion. My conclusion is more plausible,
and is devoid of pro or anti Apple sentiment. And if you could get
away from your anti-Apple sentiment for a moment you might have realized the
bag I referred to was not an Apple or iPhone bag at all (it just says at&t
on it). It's clear Apple didn't want at&t reps fooling around with this
phone.
>
> Other than moving the lines quicker on openng weekend, iTunes activation
> is actually a pretty stupid idea.
After your little diatribe I expected you to say something like this. Buying
an iPhone and activating through iTunes was as easy as it could be. And as a
bonus I did not have to deal with a single at&t rep. Took less than 5
minutes. I've waited behind people buying new phones and it took more time
than that just to gather up their paperwork, phones, boxes, etc. Me? "One
iPhone please. Here's my credit card. Goodbye."
> It would seem to me that in-store
> phone activation would make more sense since any PHONE related issues or
> questions could be handled at the store by (hopefully) knowledgeable
> individuals in a two way dialog, rather than ticking boxes for plns and
> add-ons on your computer.
I don't ever want to get bogged down with cell store employees again.
"Knowledgeable?" Don't make me laugh...
Have you ever activated an iPhone via iTunes? It doesn't seem like it,
because it is brain-dead simple to do. My thoughts are coming from having
intimate knowledge from both sides of the fence. And on the other side of
that fence I was a critical skeptic. I do have an open mind, however.
>
> iTunes would be used for the "iPod" portion of the device since there's
> no other real way to get your music on it anyway, so obviously it's going
> to get hooked up to a computer!
Then why are you bitching about iTunes activation? You can't have it both
ways.
>
>
>
> Again, as I mentioned earlier- I've yet to see a single iPhone user
> outside of an Apple store, so I can't describe the typical iPhone user
> (except maybe as "elusive," or "nebulous.")
So your extremely limited anecdotal experience is all you are going by. Got
it.
>
>
>
> My point was that I'm not sure many really want an iPhone, but rather
> might want to do a few things that it does, and for far less than $500.
If they walk in fully intending to buy an iPhone they will buy it. Even my
grandmother knows the price, so it ain't gonna be a shock.
--
Mike
| |
|
| In article <vB0vi.3182$5v1.150@fe101.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 10 Aug 2007 08:16:32 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>
> Sure- I think it's because you're more likely to fully use the features
> of a $600 product than a $99 one.
>
>
> Agreed, but it's not always due to ignorance. A good friend of mine
> bought a Treo 600 in Europe before T-Mo USA even started carrying them
> specifically to stop carrying two devices. He didn't want mobile internet
> or e-mail (he still doesn't have a data plan)- he just wanted his Palm
> PDA and his phone in the same device.
I went from early Palm Pilot, then various other Palms all the way to
Treo 650 for much the same reason, but was excited about having the data
features. Struggled with numerous issues, and needed to purchase several
additional software programs to get things to work well. All that cost
me time and money.
>
> them
> can't
> and
> the
> walking
>
> Sure it was intentional, but not for the reasons you think! The main
> reason is a "smoke-and-mirrors" way of punctuating the idea that this is
> so "different" from any other cell phone- look it comes in it's own
> special bag... look you activate it at home on your computer...
But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works great
right out of the box and activates practically instantly.
No smoke and mirrors about this.
>
> Similarly, the Toyota Prius used a goofy push-button starter for the same
> reason- to pound the idea into your head the first time you use it that
> it isn't like any other car, not because that method had any particular
> advantage over the traditional one...
You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go way
back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun, too. We
like fun.
>
> And, as a bonus, it prevents Apple stores from having to become AT&T
> agents (faxing contracts, calling activations in, etc.)
>
> Other than moving the lines quicker on openng weekend, iTunes activation
> is actually a pretty stupid idea. It would seem to me that in-store
> phone activation would make more sense since any PHONE related issues or
> questions could be handled at the store by (hopefully) knowledgeable
> individuals in a two way dialog, rather than ticking boxes for plns and
> add-ons on your computer.
I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I did
have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone support was
quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2 minutes. Treo
through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.
>
> iTunes would be used for the "iPod" portion of the device since there's
> no other real way to get your music on it anyway, so obviously it's going
> to get hooked up to a computer!
>
>
>
> Again, as I mentioned earlier- I've yet to see a single iPhone user
> outside of an Apple store, so I can't describe the typical iPhone user
> (except maybe as "elusive," or "nebulous.")
My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.
>
>
> My point was that I'm not sure many really want an iPhone, but rather
> might want to do a few things that it does, and for far less than $500.
I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract. Cost me
$399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or so on
software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
You tell me what really cost more.
>
> Apple might have capitalized on the lousy job the wireless industry had
> done promoting it's features, but the rest of the industry, particularly
> carriers without the iPhone, will fix that going forward.
Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone needed
to shake things up.
>
>
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
news:labolide-FC5590.11311610082007@news.giganews.com:
>
> But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works
> great right out of the box and activates practically instantly.
Finally? EVERY cell phone I have ever owned worked greast right out of
the box and EVERY phone/PDA has activated quicker than the iTunes
process- I walked out of the store with an activated and fully
functional phone..
> No smoke and mirrors about this.
Agreed- it is simply fanatic blindness to the real world.
>
>
>
> You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go way
> back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun, too.
> We like fun.
>
> I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I did
> have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone support
> was quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2
> minutes. Treo through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.
>
>
>
> My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
> iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.
And yet here it is, a month and a half after rollout, and there are a
number of us that have yet to see our first one on the street
>
>
> I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract. Cost
> me $399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or so
> on software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
> You tell me what really cost more.
Two years ago is meaningless data- as the market matured, prices for
like technology declined. The fact is that today, ATT has no
PDA/smartphone over $300 listed on their website, and many of them
(including the $100 phones) are as fully functional as your 650.
Spending money on software is also immaterial, unless the iPhone
came loaded with like software and the purchase of that same software
would be necessary to make today's smartphone as fully functional.
>
>
> Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
> mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone
> needed to shake things up.
A fraction of a percentage of the market is hardly shaking things up.
>
>
>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-10, 3:33 pm |
| At 10 Aug 2007 10:29:55 -0700 Tinman wrote:
> That's silly and doesn't take into account the fact that many people
> with smartphones paid $500+ and still don't use them.
The first wave, perhaps, but the majority of current smartphone users were not early adopters, but waited until prices fell. Take the Treo- it was rare to see them in use when they were $600, but common when they hit $300.
But either way, you're asolutely right that many do not use them to their full potential, and that's fine if that's what they want. (Look at how many people were thrilled about the hack that allowed them to use iPhones without phone service! That's no w
orse than a Treo without e-mail!)
> That is merely your questionable opinion. My conclusion is more
> plausible, and is devoid of pro or anti Apple sentiment.
I don't have an anti-Apple sentiment. I've said many times that I am impressed by both the hardware and marketing of the iPhone, and have conceeded it does many things better than any other phone, while explaining why it's ommissions make it unsuitable f
or MY needs. (In the interest of full disclosure, the only Apple product I own is a Nano- nice product, nice design, and does everything _I_ require of it.)
I am unimpressed with many of Apple's decisions concernig the iPhone, however, like locking out 3rd party development. I feel the iPhone has significant shortcomings that 3rd-party developers might've addressed already had they been allowed to. As I've
said ad nauseum, it's an excellent piece of hardware hampered by unfortunate decisions. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why a BT GPS can't be used, despite the excellent integration with Google Maps? Or is mentioning that "anti-Apple?"
The real problem trying to discuss the iPhone is that ANY criticism is denounced as "anti-Apple," or worse, spun into a "feature" or advantage. (Who can forget Oxford's now classic "flash eats batteries" to explain the ADVANTAGE of Safari not supporting
flash content!)
Now I'm certainly being unfair if I'm suggesting Oxford is typical of iPhone supporters here- he's an idiot-, and his opposite number certainly exists on the "anti-iPhone" side, but don't lump me in with them! (I should also point out to Kurt, if he's ea
vesdropping, that I'm in NO way suggesting that he's in the Oxford camp! He and I certainly get into it from time to time, but always rationally!)
> And if you could get
> away from your anti-Apple sentiment for a moment you might have
> realized the bag I referred to was not an Apple or iPhone bag at all
> (it just says at&t on it). It's clear Apple didn't want at&t reps
> fooling around with this phone.
Yeah, it'd be terrible if those reps actually got to learn how to use one to give an effective demonstration! ;-)
I'm just saying the at-home ctivation was as much of a marketing gimmick as anything. Disagree if you like, but frankly, I'm old-fashioned in some respects. If I'm going to buy a cellphone at a retail store, as opposed to online, I'd like it to work whe
n I leave the store. Like most, I'm just as much of a "kid at Christmas" with a new electronic toy, and would've likely Google Mapped my route home on my new iPhone if I'd bought one and was able to.
> After your little diatribe I expected you to say something like this.
> Buying an iPhone and activating through iTunes was as easy as it could
> be.
I never said it wasn't, and I think it's an excellent OPTION. I'm just suggesting that it houldn't be the only way. Remember the 8,000 to 10,000 excited iPhone owners who had problems? They wouldn't have if store personnel had to ensure each one worked
be for you left the store! Remember the lunatics standing in line with their laptops the first day to activate them before they left the store? I'd have been one of them, if I was buying an iPhone! Also unnecessary if in-store activation was an option
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-10, 10:33 pm |
| At 10 Aug 2007 07:28:06 -0500 George Kerby wrote:
> Welcome to the world of "Marketing"! Never before was it done - so
Apple was
> just smarter than Moto, Nokia, and the rest of the pack left behind.
Agreed, but I think the blame is with the cellular carriers rather than
manufacturers. Apple is in a unique position to show off the features of
the iPhone because there's only one version. How would Motorola show
off, say, Google Maps on a RAZR without disclaming "Java apps may not be
available on Verizon's 'Get It Now' service!" Here in the US, carriers
push their network and it's capabilities over equipment, and
manufacturers have to customize and/or cripple features for individual
carriers. Heck, even the GUI and menus are often different preventing
advertising from being too specific. You could show beautiful people
chatting on their RAZRs in a Moto commercial, but never a "walkthrough"
it's use, a la the iPhone commercials, because that would vary between
carrier versions!
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
| In article < HeednU_ICuiaIyHbnZ2d
nUVZ_qqgnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
> news:labolide-FC5590.11311610082007@news.giganews.com:
>
>
>
>
> Finally? EVERY cell phone I have ever owned worked greast right out of
> the box and EVERY phone/PDA has activated quicker than the iTunes
> process- I walked out of the store with an activated and fully
> functional phone..
Both the LG for my wife and my Treo required time on the phonw with
Cingular. I can only speak from experience.
>
>
> Agreed- it is simply fanatic blindness to the real world.
Fact is, you'd hate it anyway.
>
> And yet here it is, a month and a half after rollout, and there are a
> number of us that have yet to see our first one on the street
Maybe you need to get out more often. <g>
>
>
> Two years ago is meaningless data- as the market matured, prices for
> like technology declined. The fact is that today, ATT has no
> PDA/smartphone over $300 listed on their website, and many of them
> (including the $100 phones) are as fully functional as your 650.
>
> Spending money on software is also immaterial, unless the iPhone
> came loaded with like software and the purchase of that same software
> would be necessary to make today's smartphone as fully functional.
>
> A fraction of a percentage of the market is hardly shaking things up.
>
I think you get my point but just can't concede.
We already lost the naysayers up here who said it was going to flop the
day it came out. We'll have others like you hammering it until the next
quarterly numbers are released.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Scott 2007-08-10, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in news:labolide-
D31E6A.13192710082007@news.giganews.com:
> In article < HeednU_ICuiaIyHbnZ2d
nUVZ_qqgnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
of[color=darkred]
>
> Both the LG for my wife and my Treo required time on the phonw with
> Cingular. I can only speak from experience.
Then you admit that your statement that ease of activation and full
functionality out of the box FINALLY coming to the market was patently
false and nothing more than a poor attempt at Apple hype?
>
>
>
> Fact is, you'd hate it anyway.
Fact is, you're right. The one that I played with for a couple of hours
was bulky, horribly slow and the sound quality was less than ideal.
>
the[color=darkred]
use[color=darkred]
any[color=darkred]
way[color=darkred]
too.[color=darkred]
AT&T[color=darkred]
PHONE[color=darkred]
did[color=darkred]
support[color=darkre
d]
user[color=darkred]
>
> Maybe you need to get out more often. <g>
Yeah- the thousands of people I come in contact with every week is
probably too small a population base.
rather[color=darkred
]
Cost[color=darkred]
so[color=darkred]
industry[color=darkr
ed]
> I think you get my point but just can't concede.
I don't get your point- it has settled into the status of a rarely seen
and rarely sold phone. Opening numbers were no indication of sales
going forward. You are the one not conceding.
>
> We already lost the naysayers up here who said it was going to flop
the
> day it came out. We'll have others like you hammering it until the
next
> quarterly numbers are released.
>
When it will still have less than 1% of the american market if they hit
their projection.
In the meantime, the Razr 2 comes at the end of the month- a flip phone
with a larger video screen on the outside. Want to bet which phone
sells more by the end of the year? Here's a hint- the Razr is starting
at $250 and will be down to under $100 by Halloween.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-10, 10:33 pm |
| At 10 Aug 2007 11:31:24 -0700 Kurt wrote:
> I went from early Palm Pilot, then various other Palms all the way to
> Treo 650 for much the same reason, but was excited about having the
data
> features. Struggled with numerous issues, and needed to purchase
several
> additional software programs to get things to work well. All that cost
> me time and money.
I'm still curious why you had s much trouble with yours. My brother-in-
law had a 600 on Verizon and only had to buy one program to get it do
what he wanted (to add tethering support for his laptop. A feature that
either wasn't part of the 600 to begin with, or removed by Verizon.)
> But you miss the point the user finally gets a product that works great
> right out of the box and activates practically instantly.
> No smoke and mirrors about this.
You keep saying this, but every phone I've ever owned "worked out of the
box" for it's intended functions. Tweaks, 3rd-party apps, etc. are to
improve the item, not repair it. The NetFront browser I bought for my
Nokia 3650 gave my a full HTML browser on a 2003-era phone (the only
program I ever bought for it- it already had a very good e-mail client.)
> You obviously aren't a collector car guy. Push button starters go way
> back and have a certain cache. They are just as efficient. Fun, too. We
> like fun.
I'm aware that push-button starring was all the rage at one time. I even
remember push-button transmissions on early 50's automatics.
My point still stands- why did the Prius get it, and the Camry didn't?
Marketing. Believe me, if Toyota could've got the Prius to start via
thought-control they'd have done it! ;-)
> I've never done an easier phone activation than through Apple. I did
> have a question (because of adding to family plan) and phone support
was
> quick and knowledgeable. Activating throiugh iTunes took 2 minutes.
Treo
> through Cingular was a bit of an ordeal.
I haven't bought a phone in a store in awhile. Over-the-phone
activations for phones I've bought online have gone easily. My last
purchase, my wife's Dash was simplest of all. I ordered it over the phone,
and when I received it I turned it on. It received a text-message that
programmed the SIM and worked.
Again, I have nothing against the at-home activation, I just think a
customer should have the option to walk out of an AT&T (or Apple) store
with a working phone without having to bring his or her laptop with them!
> My whole circle of business peers either have, or will be getting
> iPhones. Most of these were Treo users.
Just curious- is that due to "viral marketing" (meaning are they so
impressed by yours that they now want one), or were they pre-decided like
you were and are just waiting for their contracts to end? (Don't worry-
I'm not preparing any snide jabs or retorts here- it's honest curiosity.
I think the RAZR, for example, sold well virally- it was a unique design
that made people envious. I suspect the iPhone to have a similar effect.
That's why I'm constantly surprized I don't see more (any!) people using
them, I assume they'd attract gawkers.
> I bought a Treo 650 two years ago with Cingular 2 year contract. Cost
me
> $399 minus $50 "rebate" Visa debit card. Spent a another $200 or so on
> software. Was originally paying $40 for unlimited data.
> You tell me what really cost more.
Well, to be fair, you couldn't pay $200 on iPhone software if you wanted
to! ;-)
I was impressed by Apple and AT&T's data pricing. I was certainly
expecting AT&T to go for the standrd "smartphone" rate of $40. $20 is
certainly fair.
> Good thoughts, but most of current manufacturers have been foisting
> mediocre products on us for years. Motorola had it's day. Someone
needed
> to shake things up.
I still blame the carriers- manufacturers have litle incentive to create
good products if Verizon, for example, is going to demand the features to
be removed, so instead, we've been subjected to design innovations (slim,
small, burnished, rubberized, etc.) rather than technological ones.
Take Cingular's 8525. The HTC TyTn version has two cameras- the
traditional caseback one and a small lower-res front cam for video calling.
Ooops, no Video-calling on Cingular, so that had to go, despite the fact
it could also work as a webcam over wi-fi.
Cingular's 2125 smartphone had to lose wi-fi- we wouldn't want someone to
use their own internet connection instead of a $40 dataplan, right?
Apple, thanks to the iPod's success, had the clout to call the shots that
Motorola didn't, because carriers here know most consumers pick the
carrier first, and phone second. Sprint can't get the RAZR? Here's a
Sanyo Katana- close enough. It's thin and is available in pink- what's
the difference?
Nokia must be scratching their heads wondering what they did wrong
looking at the iPhone. Apple accomplshed what they've been dreaming of-
creating a phone so compelling that American consumers would want to buy
it regardless of what carrier it required them to use.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
| In article <Eu4vi.16598$b_6.9203@fe087.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 10 Aug 2007 11:31:24 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
> data
> several
>
>
> I'm still curious why you had s much trouble with yours. My brother-in-
> law had a 600 on Verizon and only had to buy one program to get it do
> what he wanted (to add tethering support for his laptop. A feature that
> either wasn't part of the 600 to begin with, or removed by Verizon.)
>
>
> You keep saying this, but every phone I've ever owned "worked out of the
> box" for it's intended functions. Tweaks, 3rd-party apps, etc. are to
> improve the item, not repair it. The NetFront browser I bought for my
> Nokia 3650 gave my a full HTML browser on a 2003-era phone (the only
> program I ever bought for it- it already had a very good e-mail client.)
>
>
>
>
> I'm aware that push-button starring was all the rage at one time. I even
> remember push-button transmissions on early 50's automatics.
My 63 Dodge Dart had the push button automatic, but the push button
starts go back to the sports cars. Jags had 'em.
>
> My point still stands- why did the Prius get it, and the Camry didn't?
> Marketing. Believe me, if Toyota could've got the Prius to start via
> thought-control they'd have done it! ;-)
Tooling. Prius was ground-up new design.
>
>
> was
> Treo
>
> I haven't bought a phone in a store in awhile. Over-the-phone
> activations for phones I've bought online have gone easily. My last
> purchase, my wife's Dash was simplest of all. I ordered it over the phone,
> and when I received it I turned it on. It received a text-message that
> programmed the SIM and worked.
>
> Again, I have nothing against the at-home activation, I just think a
> customer should have the option to walk out of an AT&T (or Apple) store
> with a working phone without having to bring his or her laptop with them!
Maybe better today. I just remember it wasn't easy and I always buy
online, so it required activation over the phone.
>
>
>
>
> Just curious- is that due to "viral marketing" (meaning are they so
> impressed by yours that they now want one), or were they pre-decided like
> you were and are just waiting for their contracts to end? (Don't worry-
> I'm not preparing any snide jabs or retorts here- it's honest curiosity.
> I think the RAZR, for example, sold well virally- it was a unique design
> that made people envious. I suspect the iPhone to have a similar effect.
> That's why I'm constantly surprized I don't see more (any!) people using
> them, I assume they'd attract gawkers.
No, usability was the key thing for them, and all of them were
pre-decided. The advertising was brilliant in showing how it worked.
>
> me
>
> Well, to be fair, you couldn't pay $200 on iPhone software if you wanted
> to! ;-)
Yes, part of the thrill! Treo had funky mail program, required volume
control software, needed another program to play videos, and a couple
others.
Software incompatibility issues arised. Wanted a better browser than
Blazer, but Opera Mini locked up machine all the time.
>
> I was impressed by Apple and AT&T's data pricing. I was certainly
> expecting AT&T to go for the standrd "smartphone" rate of $40. $20 is
> certainly fair.
This was much-needed. Glad Apple had the clout to get this fixed.
>
> needed
>
> I still blame the carriers- manufacturers have litle incentive to create
> good products if Verizon, for example, is going to demand the features to
> be removed, so instead, we've been subjected to design innovations (slim,
> small, burnished, rubberized, etc.) rather than technological ones.
>
> Take Cingular's 8525. The HTC TyTn version has two cameras- the
> traditional caseback one and a small lower-res front cam for video calling.
> Ooops, no Video-calling on Cingular, so that had to go, despite the fact
> it could also work as a webcam over wi-fi.
>
> Cingular's 2125 smartphone had to lose wi-fi- we wouldn't want someone to
> use their own internet connection instead of a $40 dataplan, right?
>
> Apple, thanks to the iPod's success, had the clout to call the shots that
> Motorola didn't, because carriers here know most consumers pick the
> carrier first, and phone second. Sprint can't get the RAZR? Here's a
> Sanyo Katana- close enough. It's thin and is available in pink- what's
> the difference?
>
> Nokia must be scratching their heads wondering what they did wrong
> looking at the iPhone. Apple accomplshed what they've been dreaming of-
> creating a phone so compelling that American consumers would want to buy
> it regardless of what carrier it required them to use.
I think the major phone manufacturers could have raised the bar if they
had the determination. I think it's more to do with corporate culture at
these places.
Can you imagine how stifled you'd be as a creative working for ATT?
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <JLWdnWar9- xqVyHbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ
2d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in news:labolide-
> D31E6A.13192710082007@news.giganews.com:
>
> of
>
> Then you admit that your statement that ease of activation and full
> functionality out of the box FINALLY coming to the market was patently
> false and nothing more than a poor attempt at Apple hype?
Don't put words in my mouth. I said I spoke from my experience, but
others have had the same. Do a like Google action and hit the forums,
and you'll find many, many others that have had problems.
Activation required a lot of phone time (bought online).
I had Motorolas before that that were time consuming also.
I've never had a set up as easy as with the iPhone. They carefully
thought the activation part through.
I didn't even mention that the Treo had hardware problems out of the box.
Needed to get another one. Had to jump through hoops to get another.
>
>
> Fact is, you're right. The one that I played with for a couple of hours
> was bulky, horribly slow and the sound quality was less than ideal.
There you go again <g>
>
> the
> use
> any
> way
> too.
> AT&T
> PHONE
> did
> support
> user
>
> Yeah- the thousands of people I come in contact with every week is
> probably too small a population base.
I'll hold my comment on that one <g>
>
>
> rather
> Cost
> so
> industry
>
> I don't get your point- it has settled into the status of a rarely seen
> and rarely sold phone. Opening numbers were no indication of sales
> going forward. You are the one not conceding.
Like I said, let's see what you say next quarter. I'm buying one right
after this post.
>
> the
> next
>
> When it will still have less than 1% of the american market if they hit
> their projection.
>
> In the meantime, the Razr 2 comes at the end of the month- a flip phone
> with a larger video screen on the outside. Want to bet which phone
> sells more by the end of the year? Here's a hint- the Razr is starting
> at $250 and will be down to under $100 by Halloween.
Motorola is playing catchup at this point. They need to practically give
these away in order to get sales.
A friend of mine just got a Motorola Q. Expensive and worst phone he's
ever had. Was expecting a really good smartphone.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-08-10, 10:33 pm |
| "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-6B18AF.15062310082007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <JLWdnWar9- xqVyHbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ
2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> Don't put words in my mouth. I said I spoke from my experience, but
> others have had the same. Do a like Google action and hit the forums,
> and you'll find many, many others that have had problems.
>
> Activation required a lot of phone time (bought online).
> I had Motorolas before that that were time consuming also.
> I've never had a set up as easy as with the iPhone. They carefully
> thought the activation part through.
>
> I didn't even mention that the Treo had hardware problems out of the box.
> Needed to get another one. Had to jump through hoops to get another.
>
>
>
> There you go again <g>
>
> I'll hold my comment on that one <g>
>
>
> Like I said, let's see what you say next quarter. I'm buying one right
> after this post.
>
>
> Motorola is playing catchup at this point. They need to practically give
> these away in order to get sales.
>
> A friend of mine just got a Motorola Q. Expensive and worst phone he's
> ever had. Was expecting a really good smartphone.
>
>
Expensive ? With verizon and a 2yr contract it's 179.99
Lot cheaper then 500-600 for the Iflop.
> To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-10, 10:33 pm |
| At 10 Aug 2007 14:51:02 -0700 Kurt wrote:
> No, usability was the key thing for them, and all of them were
> pre-decided. The advertising was brilliant in showing how it worked.
Agreed. I was very impresse by the iPhone ads.
> Yes, part of the thrill! Treo had funky mail program, required volume
> control software, needed another program to play videos, and a couple
> others.
I think the transistion from PDA to phone was less painful for WinMo,
since Windows CE was always a multi-tasking OS, PPCs had always had
(clunky but working) media player software, POP/IMAP support, etc. Palm
had to raise the bar of a typical Palm device quite a bit to get a Treo's
feature set up to snuff. The PPC was always just a phone away from being
a high-end smartphone, whereas Palms started as much simpler (but darn
good) PIM devices.
> Software incompatibility issues arised. Wanted a better browser than
> Blazer, but Opera Mini locked up machine all the time.
You've mentioned that before- I was prowling around Opera's website and
they acknowleged the Treo problems with Mini and had a fix that required
changing a bunch of Java settings to prevent lockups. You obviously
weren't alone with Opera Mini troubles!
> This was much-needed. Glad Apple had the clout to get this fixed.
Agreed.
> I think the major phone manufacturers could have raised the bar if they
> had the determination. I think it's more to do with corporate culture
at
> these places.
Perhaps, but Nokia and LG, among others, have pumped out several
excellent phones that never saw the light of day in the US, since
carriers decide what phones get sold here. (Obviously AT&T and T-Mo
customers can go the unlocked import route, but it's expensive, difficult
to get warranty service and have no carrier tech support available for
data configuration.)
> Can you imagine how stifled you'd be as a creative working for ATT?
But again, that's a carrier- not a manufacturer. Picture if anyone but
Apple pitched the iPhone to a US carier- they'd have said "too weird-
looking- Americans won't buy it. Add a sliding keyboard, or a keyboard
that folds over the top to protect the screen, and get rid of the ability
to copy songs from your PC- we can sell the songs for $2.99 each. Then
make it in three colors- black, silver and red." Without the success of
the iPod, no American carrier would've looked at the iPhone twice.
(Before Tinman jumps in and screams "antiApple bias," that was a dig at
American carriers, not a dig at Apple!) A truly unique design is never
embraced by American carriers. They assume we all want slim flips in
"cool" colors. Look at Verizon's website. I couldn't tell two dozen of
their phones from each other- it was "a roundish flip, another roundish
flip, another roundish flip, the Chocolate, roundish flip, a RAZR,
roundish flip...", etc.
Think of how long we suffered with VGA (or lower!) res cameras on phones
because carriers wanted to keep the filesize low to maximize MMS data
profits! Eurasian-market phones have had 3 and 5 megapixel cameraphones
for years.
Even the anti-Apple crowd should root for the iPhone's success, because
if it fails, it will just reinforce the carriers' beliefs that they
"know" what customers want, and further cement the status-quo.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Charles 2007-08-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article <JK3vi.16594$b_6.15359@fe087.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> No, again, it was an observation. Another data point, if you will. You said
> you've seen enough iPhone owners to clssify them into types. I haven't. At
> first I thought it was the Coast thing (I live in Denver, and AT&T says most
> buyers were on the coasts) but I spent the last week in the Bay Area, and
> opening weekend in New York and didn't see any used there either. Is my
> observation "anti-Apple"? No, just an observation- I'm actually surprised I
> haven't seen any yet. I don't believe the hundreds of thousands sold already
> were just a hoax!
It is odd that you have not seen a single one. After your first post in
a thread stating that last Sunday, I have kept my eye open and I have
seen several every day this past week.
--
Charles
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-10, 10:33 pm |
| At 10 Aug 2007 22:21:21 -0400 Charles wrote:
> It is odd that you have not seen a single one. After your first post in
> a thread stating that last Sunday, I have kept my eye open and I have
> seen several every day this past week.
I agree it's odd! I'm wondering where they're all hiding! ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or
double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and
whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
news:labolide-6B18AF.15062310082007@news.giganews.com:
> In article <JLWdnWar9- xqVyHbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ
2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> Don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't put words in your mouth- you said it almost verbatim.
> I said I spoke from my experience,
That's not the way you positioned it and not what you said.
> but
> others have had the same. Do a like Google action and hit the forums,
> and you'll find many, many others that have had problems.
I find some, but a very small portion of the population.
>
> Activation required a lot of phone time (bought online).
Last one I bought online took less than five minutes, including the time
to dial.
> I had Motorolas before that that were time consuming also.
> I've never had a set up as easy as with the iPhone. They carefully
> thought the activation part through.
No they didn't. The fact that you were unable to handle the technology
previously doesn't mean that Apple did anything. Having to travel with
an unactivated phone to get it activated is moronic.
>
> I didn't even mention that the Treo had hardware problems out of the
> box.
See similar stories (via Google) that speak to iPhone hardware problems.
> Needed to get another one. Had to jump through hoops to get
> another.
>
>
>
> There you go again <g>
Go again? I voiced my experience with it, moron.
>
> I'll hold my comment on that one <g>
No -go for it. Between commuting, working and leisure time, I see quite
a few people in the course of a week. None of them have produced an
iPhone.
>
>
> Like I said, let's see what you say next quarter. I'm buying one right
> after this post.
That's not what you said, but thanks for proving that you are incapable
of keeping your own story straight.
>
>
> Motorola is playing catchup at this point. They need to practically
> give these away in order to get sales.
Motorola has sold somewhere in the magnitude of 100 times the number of
Razrs when compare to Apple. The trick is that Motorola gets their
price for the phone- the carriers are the ones marking it down and
writing off the loss.
>
> A friend of mine just got a Motorola Q.
Good for him- why didn't he get a precious iPhone?
> Expensive and worst phone he's
> ever had.
Expensive? $99 at most places these days.
> Was expecting a really good smartphone.
>
Then he didn't do his research real well, did he?
| |
| Tinman 2007-08-11, 4:33 am |
| "Todd Allcock" wrote:
> At 10 Aug 2007 10:29:55 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>
> The first wave, perhaps, but the majority of current smartphone
> users were not early adopters, but waited until prices fell. Take the
> Treo- it was rare to see them in use when they were $600, but
> common when they hit $300.
>
Yes it would be nice if the iPhone will subsequently offered at a lower
price (with rebate, etc.). Indeed I expect that to happen. Actually it
"almost" is true now...
....because I just found out that my iPhone doesn't count as a subsidized
phone purchase with at&t. In other words I can get any deal, right now, that
at&t currently offers to new subscribers on another phone (I don't have to
add another line). I verified this at my local at&t CS, at an at&t store,
and on at&t's Website (it shows my iPhone line as being eligible for
upgrades). Indeed I have the Website open and am deciding on a phone. The
only drawback is that I have to extend my contract by another 3 weeks (no
biggie, and if I knew this when I bough the iPhone I would have done it
then).
So I just need to decide whether to get one of the free phones to keep as a
spare, a Blackjack to Ebay (unopened), or something else. Might even go for
a Curve and Ebay that. They seem to be going for $500 on Ebay, and I can get
it for $250. Either way getting the extra phone helps mitigate the cost of
the iPhone, IMO.
>
> I don't have an anti-Apple sentiment.
The reason I mentioned that is because you seem to dwell on the iPhone. But
I didn't mean to imply you were a direct opposite of, say, none/Oxford.
>
> The real problem trying to discuss the iPhone is that ANY criticism is
> denounced as "anti-Apple," or worse, spun into a "feature" or advantage.
I am sure you can see that some people seem to like to bash it for the sake
of bashing it. That just seems pointless to me. Either buy it or not. And if
not move on. And I am no Apple apologist--I don't even own anything Apple
besides the iPhone.
> Now I'm certainly being unfair if I'm suggesting Oxford is typical of
> iPhone supporters here- he's an idiot-, and his opposite number certainly
> exists on the "anti-iPhone" side, but don't lump me in with them!
LOL. I definitely won't do that.
>
> But that's not a major issue. In your mind I'm "trashing" Apple for
> daring
> to suggest anything about the product is based on marketing rather than
> some zen-like quest for the ultimate end-user experiece. Fine.
No, it's when you use statements like smoke-and-mirrors (which implies
something that doesn't work at all), and start threads wondering where all
the iPhones are that has me wondering why this product has caught your ire
so much.
>
> Really? You ought to bring it around to the NG sometime. ;-)
I do. The reason I came to the Cingular NG was primarily because of the
iPhone announcement. But I didn't blindly buy it, nor blindly trash it. I
discussed it here (and elsewhere: despite what it seems like lately this
group really doesn't have much iPhone discussion). I also criticised it
here, and at one point doubted I could ever give up my Treo for it. But I
did, and it's working out well.
But what I meant about open mind was discussing the iPhone here in an open
forum (OK, newsgroups!). It would be very easy to stick to discussions on
iPhone forums, but I do like to hear constructive criticism.
Again, didn't mean to paint you as some kind of Anti-Apple crusader (nor am
I anything like the Apple-or-nothing crowd).
--
Mike
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-08-11, 3:33 pm |
| At 11 Aug 2007 01:49:20 -0700 Tinman wrote:
> I just found out that my iPhone doesn't count as a subsidized
> phone purchase with at&t. In other words I can get any deal, right now,
that
> at&t currently offers to new subscribers on another phone (I don't have
to
> add another line). I verified this at my local at&t CS, at an at&t store,
> and on at&t's Website (it shows my iPhone line as being eligible for
> upgrades). Indeed I have the Website open and am deciding on a phone.
The
> only drawback is that I have to extend my contract by another 3 weeks
(no
> biggie, and if I knew this when I bough the iPhone I would have done it
> then).
Brilliant- a nice way to get an unsubsidized phone subsidized.
> So I just need to decide whether to get one of the free phones to keep
as a
> spare, a Blackjack to Ebay (unopened), or something else. Might even go
for
> a Curve and Ebay that. They seem to be going for $500 on Ebay, and I
can get
> it for $250.
The Curve is pretty hot right now- if they really are fetching $500,
strike while the iron is hot. You could always buy a cheap GoPhone down
the road if you needed a spare phone for whatever reason. (I.e. the beach,
or any environmentyou weren't comfortable dragging a $600 phone!)
> Either way getting the extra phone helps mitigate the cost of
> the iPhone, IMO.
Agreed.
>
> The reason I mentioned that is because you seem to dwell on the iPhone.
Perhaps "dwell" was fair. Admittedly I was very disappointed by it in
some ways, but more like a large diamond with an obvious flaw. Apple, IMO,
got it 90% exactly right, then blew the other 10% so badly!
Plus, I guess after many years in sales and marketing, I'm just world-
weary and jaded enough to grit my teeth whenever I hear "revolutionary"
or "industry-changing" attached to a product... and people actually
believe it.
And I'm not blaming Apple for the hype- they've been brilliant- big
announcement and demo 6 months before launch, then shut the hell up and
let the blogs, word of mouth and the media do the rest.
> But
> I didn't mean to imply you were a direct opposite of, say, none/Oxford.
>
Thanks for that, anyway! ;-)
> I am sure you can see that some people seem to like to bash it for the
sake
> of bashing it. That just seems pointless to me.
True- every 800-lb. gorilla gets that though. For example, Microsoft
certainly doesn't bat 1.000, but if they were as crappy as bashers say,
they would be in the position they are now.
> Either buy it or not. And if
> not move on. And I am no Apple apologist--I don't even own anything
Apple
> besides the iPhone.
If Apple played their cards right, you will soon enough! ;-) Consumer
satisfaction with the iPod has helped drive Mac sales.
> No, it's when you use statements like smoke-and-mirrors (which implies
> something that doesn't work at all),
Nah, I meant more in the Wizard of Oz "ignore the man behind the curtain"
sense- it's not that it doesn't work well, just that, IMO, it's purpose
is "disguised." Think about it -Apple was willing to put up with AT&T's
network, corporate red-tape, salespeople, billing systems, customer
service etc. but the drew the line at the ACTIVATION process? Please!
As convenient as it may be, it smacks of "look how different it all is.
It's unlike any other phone you bought." (And, to nitpick, the lowly
prepaid Tracfone has been web-activated for years- you buy one at a
retailer, take it home, and activate it over the web. Sure, you actually
have to type the phone's information in rather than plug it in via USB,
but even the idea of avoiding sales reps or in-store activations isn't
really new.
> and start threads wondering where all
> the iPhones are that has me wondering why this product has caught your
ire
> so much.
That wasn't ire, but actual curiosity. I'd recently read in RCR News (a
cellular trade paper) the AT&T breakdown of initial iPhone sales into
cateories (i.e. 40% were "new" customers, etc.) and was interested that
the "majority" of sales (AT&T didn't specify a %) were on the east and
west coasts. Living in Denver, and not seeing any, I got to thinking,
well, where are they?
For the record, although I've ceratinly participated in many, that is the
only thread I've started regarding the iPhone. If I had "ire" I'd be
stirring the pot up a bit more.
I can see in retrospect, however, why my thread might have looked
negative if it showed up during that "AT&T says 140k Apple says 270k"
nonsense (if, which you'll recall, I was firmly on the side of "no big
deal/non-issue" not "SEC should investigate!"
> I do.
I know- I just can't resist when lobbed such an easy straight-line!
> The reason I came to the Cingular NG was primarily because of the
> iPhone announcement. But I didn't blindly buy it, nor blindly trash it.
I
> discussed it here (and elsewhere: despite what it seems like lately
this
> group really doesn't have much iPhone discussion).
Better than before, when it had virtually none at all except "what should
we call the broup from now on?"
> I also criticised it
> here, and at one point doubted I could ever give up my Treo for it. But
I
> did, and it's working out well.
I'm glad it is, and like I said- a high tide lifts all boats. Look what
function Opera's added to Mini 4 and plans for Opera Mobile 9- an iPhone
like browsing experience- it renders the "real" page in minitaure then
zooms into what you highlight. Simple, obvious, easy. Why did it take
Apple to point out what we all do with our eyes naturally? Take in a
whole image then focus on the part that interests us!
> But what I meant about open mind was discussing the iPhone here in an
open
> forum (OK, newsgroups!). It would be very easy to stick to discussions
on
> iPhone forums, but I do like to hear constructive criticism.
Agreed. I have no interest in the iPhone except where it intersects the
cellular industry so iPhone forums don't interest me (I don't need to
know about the great new widget, tips and tricks for use, what brand of
skin is best, etc.) If I were truly a basher or troublemaker, THAT'S
where I'd go.
> Again, didn't mean to paint you as some kind of Anti-Apple crusader
(nor am
> I anything like the Apple-or-nothing crowd).
Fair enough. Like I tell Kurt- I'm glad you enjoy it. Hopefully it's
improvements will rub off on other devices (seemingly Opera already got
the message!) or that Apple will listen to feedback and incorporate the
few missing desirable features in the next gen.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
| In article < P5idnRHeHd5VziDbnZ2d
nUVZ_jOdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> Go again? I voiced my experience with it, moron.
Name calling = desperation
<plonk>
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <2h7vi.1546$3x.884@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
> "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
> news:labolide-6B18AF.15062310082007@news.giganews.com...
> Expensive ? With verizon and a 2yr contract it's 179.99
> Lot cheaper then 500-600 for the Iflop.
>
I'm taking about an ordinary non-tech person who thought he was getting
a good smartphone. He told me how much he paid. I'm not going to call
him a liar. Cheaper? So what? He hated the functionality.
If getting a good plan and a good phone requires the kind of research
and effort that one does to buy decent plane tickets these days, it's no
wonder the industry needs the shakeup.
I probably shouldn't mention that he is getting a <shudder> iPhone. :-)
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
|