|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > March 2007 > Apple's New Calling: The 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 |
Apple's New Calling: The iPhone
|
|
| Matthew T. Russotto 2007-01-14, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 45aa6d0c$0$69030$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>During the Jewish holiday of Passover, you can get Coke that uses sugar
>as opposed to corn syrup. It's a huge seller as the addicts stock up for
>the year. It's only available in certain areas of the country with a
>large Jewish population.
It's no longer available. The council in charge of such things
decided HFCS was kosher for Passover (insert conspiracy theory here).
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-01-14, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-01-14, Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> On 2007-01-14, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know much about these technologies, but the press release
> also states:
>
> GSM850/900/1800/1900 compatibility for network support in Europe, Asia
> Pacific, Japan, Africa and the US
>
> Is that any good?
That's just so-so (and I think "Japan" may be a lie with that).
Good would be UMTS and HSDPA in addition to that. Plus 2100 MHz.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Wes Groleau 2007-01-14, 10:33 pm |
| It's a variant of OS X just like Windows 2000
is a variant of Windows NT.
Of course they're not going to call it "Mac OS X"
if it isn't running on a Mac.
What it does is important, not what it "is"
and what it's called is less important than either.
--
Wes Groleau
He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
-- Samuel Butler, 1612-1680
| |
| Wes Groleau 2007-01-14, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> While you might be correct, seeing Jobs play with one through a rehearsed
> demo on a stage doesn't necessarily mean "they got it right." It'll be
> six months before you know that for sure.
I have a confession to make. I bought a knife
after watching a guy demonstrate how sharp and
tough it was.
Didn't take me long to figure out the guy had
lots of training and rehearsal time at making
it LOOK LIKE the thing was sharp and tough.
--
Wes Groleau
"There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over."
-- Larry Wall
| |
| Eric Lindsay 2007-01-14, 10:33 pm |
| In article <50veilF1h3908U1@mid.individual.net>,
Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> I don't know much about these technologies, but the press release
> also states:
>
> GSM850/900/1800/1900 compatibility for network support in Europe, Asia
> Pacific, Japan, Africa and the US
>
> Is that any good?
GSM is good, in terms of potential buyers of the phone. It is an earlier
technology, but most of the mobile phones in the world still use it.
Outside the USA, probably 80% of all mobile phones are GSM. Even
Cingular use GSM, despite all the negative comments about them, and they
have more customers than anyone else in the USA (approaching 60
million). In particular, Cingular are much larger than the next biggest
GSM phone mob in the USA.
My guess is the GSM Apple iPhone will be the first Apple product to sell
in larger numbers outside the USA than in the USA, despite the even
later launch outside the USA.
There are indications that chipsets to support GSM are smaller and use
less power than some of the alternatives. This may also be a factor in
Apple launching with GSM. It might have been an easier design.
Some of the negatives for GSM include poor range. It is a city phone,
not a country phone. If you live in a country area, GSM is usually not
your first choice. However in most countries GSM is available, it covers
(say) 90% of the population, whereas CDMA may cover (say) 97%. If you
happen to live in a poorly served area, you will be screaming for
something instead of GSM, and pointing out how poor the coverage is.
EDGE is a fast data connection (relative to the old GSM data connection)
but slow relative to other methods. Most people don't do a lot of data
transfer. If you do, you will be screaming EDGE is not good enough.
If the Apple iPhone sells well, Apple will almost certainly bring out
other models using different technologies, to push sales into areas they
will otherwise miss.
On the basis of what little was in the keynote, and on the Apple site, I
don't believe Apple see this model as being a Smartphone. This is
despite people saying it is like a little computer, has OS X, etc. Lots
of people want a Smartphone with PDA facilities, such as the Windows
Mobile, Palm Treo and Symbian phones. These enthusiasts are also noisy,
and likely to be very visible on web sites. However only around 20
million people a year buy these Smartphones. Apple are not going to take
half the Smartphone market, despite a price up there in Smartphone
country.
I think Apple believe there is a premium market niche at good margins
for a standard feature phone with a very nice interface. So far I can't
see a lot (except maybe the WiFi and maybe a better browser) that I
can't get in a standard candybar phone without a contract for under
$100. They sure won't get the people who want the latest and greatest
technology. But I think they will get their niche.
--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
| |
| Jeremy Nixon 2007-01-15, 4:33 am |
| Peter <joe@blow.com> wrote:
> Speaking of Coke - have they changed the formula or something? I live in
> Australia and the Coke here tastes way better than in the States -
> honest!
US Coke uses high fructose corn syrup in place of (most of the) sugar,
and as a result, is quite foul. Your Coke uses real sugar.
In the US, HFCS is much cheaper than sugar because our government puts
extremely high tariffs on sugar imports in an attempt to protect the
domestic sugar producers. Sugar in the US is about seven times more
expensive than the world market.
> Which is quite odd because the last time went visited the states -
> California - I don't recall noticing much difference.
The change happened in roughly the mid-'80s. The change to HFCS was
snuck in as part of "Coke Classic" after the whole "New Coke" debacle.
--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
| |
| Tim Smith 2007-01-15, 4:33 am |
| In article
<NOwebmasterSPAM-39CC14. 13453515012007@freen
ews.iinet.net.au>,
Eric Lindsay < NOwebmasterSPAM@eric
lindsay.com> wrote:
> GSM is good, in terms of potential buyers of the phone. It is an earlier
....
> Some of the negatives for GSM include poor range. It is a city phone,
I read somewhere how the different phone systems reflect the different
approaches to regulations in the US and Europe. In Europe, the
governments agreed on a standard (GSM) fairly early, before cell phones
were widespread, and everyone had to use it. In the US, it was left up
to carriers to decide what technology to use, and so we ended up with
several, incompatible, systems. However, some of them are superior to
GSM.
One thing very nice about GSM is that the phone and the service are
separate. You have a little card that has your carrier information.
That plugs into the phone. So, in Europe, your phone itself has no tie
with the carrier. You want a new phone? Buy one, and move your card
from your old phone, and it works.
It's disappointing that the iPhone apparently won't work that way.
--
--Tim Smith
| |
| Doc O'Leary 2007-01-15, 7:33 am |
| In article <znu-F7080A. 13182414012007@indiv
idual.net>,
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <droleary.usenet-5E1051.07590514012007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think the industry standard of telling you what network you're
> on by, uh... tell you what network your on is particularly stupid.
Then you'd be wrong right along with the industry. The reality is that
customers are pretty much with the same network provider for months, if
not years, at a time. It serves no purpose other that ego gratification
to burn "cingular" into my display.
>
> The icons probably either shrink of scroll. I'd guess they just didn't
> want to do this out of the box.
But it remains a question that needs to be answered. Some people might
not *want* icons getting tinier and tinier. Hell, as it stands there
may be some people (especially older folks) who might even *now* prefer
to have a 2x2 matrix instead of a 4x4. Of the 11 current "extra"
functions, there really aren't even 4 that I think I would need
*instant* access to. In fact, the more I think about it, the less sense
the current arrangement makes.
> In many cases it's better to keep things simple than to allow all sorts
> of customization. Yes, if you have more than 16 items, reordering would
> be useful. We've got no idea how Apple handles this or how likely this
> case really is.
I agree that it is pure speculation, but that's pretty much all anyone
can do at this point. Still, it doesn't hurt to give an honest critique
of what *seems* to be missing, either in hopes that Apple will address
the issue or in hopes that someone *else* in the industry will also see
it and then blow by Apple with an even better design.
> How big is that status bar? 16 pixels? Given the screen resolution, I
> think people will live. And the bad *does* go away when it really
> should, like when you're watching movies.
Seeing what they have on their site, though, playing video seems like
the *only* time it goes away. I mean, it's there for no good reason
even when browsing music or photos! If it's not a XXXXing "cingular
iPod" why the hell is Apple diluting their brand by leaving it there for
decidedly non-communication functions?
And while I'm not sure of the actual pixel count, it sure looks like
it's taking upwards of 5% of the screen 90% of the time to display
information that is hardly ever useful. Yes, these sorts of things are
common in "industry standard" phone, and that's why I'm going to be
extra harsh on Apple for not being smarter.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-01-15, 10:33 am |
| On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:35:09 -0500, Tim Smith wrote
(in article <reply_in_group-335CB5.23350914012007@news.supernews.com> ):
> One thing very nice about GSM is that the phone and the service are
> separate. You have a little card that has your carrier information.
> That plugs into the phone. So, in Europe, your phone itself has no tie
> with the carrier. You want a new phone? Buy one, and move your card
> from your old phone, and it works.
>
> It's disappointing that the iPhone apparently won't work that way.
Actually NONE of the GSM phones work that way in North America. They can
(and are) still locked to the carrier. Even the UK does this for the
subsidized models.
| |
|
| In article
<NOwebmasterSPAM-C85F9A. 07291615012007@freen
ews.iinet.net.au>,
Eric Lindsay < NOwebmasterSPAM@eric
lindsay.com> wrote:
> In article <joe-1EB71D.21561514012007@news.webone.com.au>,
> Peter <joe@blow.com> wrote:
>
>
> Coke in Australia uses sugar (except for diet versions). Not surprising
> considering the low price of sugar. Where I live, the first item on the
> local TV news is the number of tonnes of sugar cane crushed that day
> (during crushing season) and the sugar concentration.
>
> As far as I know, corn syrup has been used in Coke in the USA for many
> years. I used to visit the USA fairly often, and it was very noticeable
> (even in California).
Yes, it's been corn syrup in the US for years. Cheaper to make. Mexico
still makes Coke with sugar, and you can find it in some latin food
markets in Southern California. There is a big underground demand for
it, but because the US distributors are threatened by its popularity in
the latin market, they won't let it in here officially. Big taste
difference.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> Peter <joe@blow.com> wrote:
>
>
> US Coke uses high fructose corn syrup in place of (most of the) sugar,
> and as a result, is quite foul. Your Coke uses real sugar.
>
> In the US, HFCS is much cheaper than sugar because our government puts
> extremely high tariffs on sugar imports in an attempt to protect the
> domestic sugar producers.
Not just them, the government is also protecting the HFCS producers,
because the artificially high sugar prices cause the soft drink makers
to use HFCS. ADM has a lot of political clout.
| |
| BreadWithSpam@fractious.net 2007-01-15, 12:33 pm |
| SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> writes:
> Actually NONE of the GSM phones work that way in North America. They can
> (and are) still locked to the carrier. Even the UK does this for the
> subsidized models.
And they can usually be unlocked easily enough. Moreover,
it's not like it's difficult to buy unlocked phones here.
One just has to pay the full price of the phone rather than
the subsidized price. Admittedly, usually the unlocked
phones one buys in the US were originally packaged for
foreign markets (ie. have too many electrical plugs in
the box) but that doesn't stop them from working with
Cingular and T-Mobile GSM chips. Pop them in and talk away.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
| |
|
| Ian Gregory wrote:
> GSM850/900/1800/1900 compatibility for network support in Europe, Asia
> Pacific, Japan, Africa and the US
>
> Is that any good?
That part is fine, it's the data part that's the problem.
GPRS has a typical data rate of 20-40 Kb/s, about the same as a dial-up
modem. EDGE has a typical data rate of 144 Kb/s. The current high speed
data offerings from Cingular, Sprint, and Verizon are about 1 Mb/s.
Since the iPhone isn't going to be used to tether a computer to the
Cingular data network, EDGE is probably okay for the limited web
browsing you'd want to do on a small screen. However some newer phones
from Cingular do have the HSDPA modem built in, and you will be able to
tether, rather than using a CardBus or ExpressCard modem.
| |
|
| Ian Gregory wrote:
> On 2007-01-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> But not "Mac OS X"? I think the point that John Gruber was making was
> that whatever the iPhone OS is, and no matter how close it is to
> "Mac OS X", Apple will not be calling it "Mac OS X" - it will be
> called "OS X".
>
> This might be a bit confusing, because until now, if it was obvious
> by context that you were talking about an Apple operating system then
> you could be lazy and just refer to it as "OS X" instead of "Mac OS X"
> and people would know that you were talking about the operating system
> that runs on a Mac. Now however, Apple will have two (very closely
> related) operating systems; "OS X" which only runs on iPhones and
> "Mac OS X" which only runs on Macs.
I'm sure that they'll be pushing out the latest revs of iPhone OS X to
the phone, so the user won't be involved in doing any upgrades to the OS
of the phone like they are in doing upgrades to their desktop or
notebook. The iPhone user won't have to do anything, so they shouldn't
be confused.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-15, 3:33 pm |
| At 15 Jan 2007 08:15:41 -0800 Kurt wrote:
> Yes, it's been corn syrup in the US for years. Cheaper to make. Mexico
> still makes Coke with sugar
I'm not sure that's nationwide. I just got back from Cancun, and the
Coke there was maid with corn syrup as well. I was hpoing to get some of
the "good stuff" but, alas, no luck.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Steve de Mena 2007-01-15, 10:33 pm |
| Tim Smith wrote:
> In article
> <NOwebmasterSPAM-39CC14. 13453515012007@freen
ews.iinet.net.au>,
> Eric Lindsay < NOwebmasterSPAM@eric
lindsay.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> I read somewhere how the different phone systems reflect the different
> approaches to regulations in the US and Europe. In Europe, the
> governments agreed on a standard (GSM) fairly early, before cell phones
> were widespread, and everyone had to use it. In the US, it was left up
> to carriers to decide what technology to use, and so we ended up with
> several, incompatible, systems. However, some of them are superior to
> GSM.
>
> One thing very nice about GSM is that the phone and the service are
> separate. You have a little card that has your carrier information.
> That plugs into the phone. So, in Europe, your phone itself has no tie
> with the carrier. You want a new phone? Buy one, and move your card
> from your old phone, and it works.
Don't they subsidize (and lock) GSM phones in
Europe also? I seem to recall seeing two prices
(with and without service) when shopping over there.
>
> It's disappointing that the iPhone apparently won't work that way.
>
Steve
| |
| Mitch 2007-01-15, 10:33 pm |
| In article <reply_in_group-335CB5.23350914012007@news.supernews.com>,
Tim Smith < reply_in_group@mouse
-potato.com> wrote:
> One thing very nice about GSM is that the phone and the service are
> separate. You have a little card that has your carrier information.
> That plugs into the phone. So, in Europe, your phone itself has no tie
> with the carrier. You want a new phone? Buy one, and move your card
> from your old phone, and it works.
>
> It's disappointing that the iPhone apparently won't work that way.
We don't know that.
What we know is that the first one offered is not compatible with other
services yet -- maybe because they are judging only based on all
features.
That doesn't mean it won't work that way when it is compatible. Maybe
Apple will have to give up using some features on other networks to do
so. Maybe they'll have a different code in the SIM card.
| |
| Alan Baker 2007-01-15, 10:33 pm |
| In article <50vnnoF1i3uqjU1@mid.individual.net>,
Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> On 2007-01-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> But not "Mac OS X"? I think the point that John Gruber was making was
> that whatever the iPhone OS is, and no matter how close it is to
> "Mac OS X", Apple will not be calling it "Mac OS X" - it will be
> called "OS X".
>
> This might be a bit confusing, because until now, if it was obvious
> by context that you were talking about an Apple operating system then
> you could be lazy and just refer to it as "OS X" instead of "Mac OS X"
> and people would know that you were talking about the operating system
> that runs on a Mac. Now however, Apple will have two (very closely
> related) operating systems; "OS X" which only runs on iPhones and
> "Mac OS X" which only runs on Macs.
>
> I don't know. It seems there is still some confusion about the whole
> thing.
>
> Ian
Actually, it doesn't seem there's much confusion at all.
OS X for the cell phone is just Mac OS X without the things that are
appropriate only for use on a general purpose computer.
Sure, Mac OS X as installed on a Mac is pretty large for cellphone use,
but:
Remove the languages that are all installed by default.
Remove the extra apps that really don't have a lot of relevance on
device such as a phone (Automator, for instance).
And you could slim down the /Library and /System quite a lot.
On my system, they currently take up about 7.36GB, but that includes
quite a lot of third-party stuff in /Library such as 2.9GB in
Application Support and nearly 1GB for Printers. I don't think you're
really going to need printer drivers or GarageBand loops on an iPhone,
do you?
There's also half a GB of Software Update installer packages that could
go. So without even needing to remove anything remotely useful on an
iPhone, we've already gone from 7.4GB down to about 3GB. Imagine what
happens when you remove the language localization files from every piece
of software in /Library and /System.e
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
| |
|
|
"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW. C1D109B901BA6D4EF020
3648@news.giganews.com...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:35:09 -0500, Tim Smith wrote
> (in article <reply_in_group-335CB5.23350914012007@news.supernews.com> ):
>
>
> Actually NONE of the GSM phones work that way in North America. They can
> (and are) still locked to the carrier. Even the UK does this for the
> subsidized models.
Yes, but it is a relatively simple operation to unlock a phone and use any
SIM card you want in it. Can the same be said of the iPhone?
>
| |
|
| In article < 45abdc86$0$4841$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 15 Jan 2007 08:15:41 -0800 Kurt wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure that's nationwide. I just got back from Cancun, and the
> Coke there was maid with corn syrup as well. I was hpoing to get some of
> the "good stuff" but, alas, no luck.
Oh no!
But you can try:
http://store.drsoda.com/mexicancoke.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/union...1b9mexcoke.html
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-15, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 45abb9b8$0$68997$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
> Not just them, the government is also protecting the HFCS producers,
> because the artificially high sugar prices cause the soft drink
> makers to use HFCS. ADM has a lot of political clout.
ADM has a *LOT* of political clout. With the increasing blurring of
boundaries between government and the corporate world, this is true of
many companies. A large percentage of US federal regulations are
designed to benefit industries rather than citizens.
| |
| Ian Gregory 2007-01-15, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-01-16, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh no!
> But you can try:
>
> http://store.drsoda.com/mexicancoke.html
I am not a fan of cola beverages and generally prefer water from the
tap. Sometimes I get a taste for it but generally avoid anything from
the Coca-Cola Company [1].
There are of course many other options, including an GPL one!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola
Or you can make your own using recipie such as the one used to make
cube cola:
http://sparror.cubecinema.com/cube/cola/
Perhaps Apple should forget about dodgy advertising campaigns in
partnership with PepsiCo (doing the RIAAs dirty work for them),
and instead go into the cola business itself. With all the ridiculous
hype over the iPhone they could probably clean up with "iCola":-)
Ian
[1]: http://www.killercoke.org/
--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
| |
| Steve Hix 2007-01-15, 10:33 pm |
| In article <timmcn-946C68.19491815012007@news.iphouse.com>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> ADM has a *LOT* of political clout. With the increasing blurring of
> boundaries between government and the corporate world, this is true of
> many companies. A large percentage of US federal regulations are
> designed to benefit industries rather than citizens.
Where have you been for the past century and a half?
Well, not you *personally*, but you should get the notion.
This sort of stuff was old when Nebuchadnezzar was a pup.
| |
|
| In article
<droleary.usenet-9A10B4.05011515012007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <znu-F7080A. 13182414012007@indiv
idual.net>,
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Then you'd be wrong right along with the industry. The reality is that
> customers are pretty much with the same network provider for months, if
> not years, at a time. It serves no purpose other that ego gratification
> to burn "cingular" into my display.
This indicates what network you're currently connected to, not what
provider you have. These are not necessarily the same at all times.
>
> But it remains a question that needs to be answered. Some people might
> not *want* icons getting tinier and tinier. Hell, as it stands there
> may be some people (especially older folks) who might even *now* prefer
> to have a 2x2 matrix instead of a 4x4. Of the 11 current "extra"
> functions, there really aren't even 4 that I think I would need
> *instant* access to. In fact, the more I think about it, the less sense
> the current arrangement makes.
Do you not think nitpicking in this level of detail might be slightly
ludicrous six months before the device even ships?
>
> I agree that it is pure speculation, but that's pretty much all
> anyone can do at this point. Still, it doesn't hurt to give an
> honest critique of what *seems* to be missing, either in hopes that
> Apple will address the issue or in hopes that someone *else* in the
> industry will also see it and then blow by Apple with an even better
> design.
>
>
> Seeing what they have on their site, though, playing video seems like
> the *only* time it goes away. I mean, it's there for no good reason
> even when browsing music or photos! If it's not a XXXXing "cingular
> iPod" why the hell is Apple diluting their brand by leaving it there
> for decidedly non-communication functions?
>
> And while I'm not sure of the actual pixel count, it sure looks like
> it's taking upwards of 5% of the screen 90% of the time to display
> information that is hardly ever useful.
Like whether you have a signal, whether your battery is about to die,
what time it is, and whether you might be racking up unexpected charges
because you're roaming on another network?
You have an odd definition of "hardly ever useful".
> Yes, these sorts of things are common in "industry standard" phone,
> and that's why I'm going to be extra harsh on Apple for not being
> smarter.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
|
| In article <reply_in_group-335CB5.23350914012007@news.supernews.com>,
Tim Smith < reply_in_group@mouse
-potato.com> wrote:
> In article
> <NOwebmasterSPAM-39CC14. 13453515012007@freen
ews.iinet.net.au>,
> Eric Lindsay < NOwebmasterSPAM@eric
lindsay.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> I read somewhere how the different phone systems reflect the different
> approaches to regulations in the US and Europe. In Europe, the
> governments agreed on a standard (GSM) fairly early, before cell phones
> were widespread, and everyone had to use it. In the US, it was left up
> to carriers to decide what technology to use, and so we ended up with
> several, incompatible, systems. However, some of them are superior to
> GSM.
>
> One thing very nice about GSM is that the phone and the service are
> separate. You have a little card that has your carrier information.
> That plugs into the phone. So, in Europe, your phone itself has no tie
> with the carrier. You want a new phone? Buy one, and move your card
> from your old phone, and it works.
>
> It's disappointing that the iPhone apparently won't work that way.
The truth is, if Apple wants to do anything really interesting with the
phone in the long run, they need:
1) Concessions from cellular providers on things like data plan rates.
2) Cooperation in developing new features that require network support.
Promising exclusivity was probably the only reasonable way to get these
things in the US. Maybe things will work out differently in other
markets.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
|
| In article <sehix-0CC477.18304715012007@news.speakeasy.net>,
Steve Hix < sehix@NOSPAMspeakeas
y.netINVALID> wrote:
> In article <timmcn-946C68.19491815012007@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
> Where have you been for the past century and a half?
>
> Well, not you *personally*, but you should get the notion.
>
> This sort of stuff was old when Nebuchadnezzar was a pup.
I've always been entertained that blurring the boundaries between
corporations and the government can be called either "communism" or
"fasism" and that these ideologies are treated as being polar opposites,
despite the fact that essentially nothing differs in practice except the
rhetoric.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
| Doc O'Leary 2007-01-16, 10:33 am |
| In article <znu-5CDB17. 04343116012007@indiv
idual.net>,
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> This indicates what network you're currently connected to, not what
> provider you have. These are not necessarily the same at all times.
Are you seriously suggesting that T-Mobile is going to be displayed in
that space any time soon? If not, *given* that the provider is not the
network, why not just display the shorter network status? As I already
noted, and you seem unable to grasp, displaying the fact that I "roam"
or am "home" is more useful to me as a user than keeping "cingular" on
the screen, especially when I'm not planning on making a call.
> Do you not think nitpicking in this level of detail might be slightly
> ludicrous six months before the device even ships?
That leaves Apple time to fix things. It would be ludicrous to wait
until days before shipping (or even afterwards) until bothering to bring
up usability issues. Your world view seems very backwards.
> Like whether you have a signal, whether your battery is about to die,
> what time it is, and whether you might be racking up unexpected charges
> because you're roaming on another network?
>
> You have an odd definition of "hardly ever useful".
Have you bothered to read my other posts? Yes, those things are useless
*at least* 90% of them time an iPhone will be in operation. The signal
only matters when you're using the cellular network, and even then you
only need to know when the signal is *bad*. The same is true for
possible roaming charges. The battery level *does* only matter when it
is low! Like I said, these are things that are better suited to an
overlay.
And the damn *clock* is something you deem that important? Your idea of
a feature list must be like the "on/off button" bullet point in the SNL
spoof. I'd like to think that consumer electronics are advanced enough
that we don't have to make a clock prominent in everything. This should
be especially true of the iPhone because its idle screen already seems
to display a pretty visible clock in addition to the world clock widget.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-16, 10:33 am |
| In article <znu-81BA23. 04393516012007@indiv
idual.net>,
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> The truth is, if Apple wants to do anything really interesting with the
> phone in the long run, they need:
>
> 1) Concessions from cellular providers on things like data plan rates.
No, they don't. Cellular plan costs are between the service provider
and the customer. Apple is not the service provider, just the phone
provider. The analogous situation is Apple having no place in
negotiating concessions on ISP service costs.
> 2) Cooperation in developing new features that require network support.
This Apple would need to do. Otherwise the iPhone would be all dressed
up with nowhere to go.
| |
|
| ZnU wrote:
> The truth is, if Apple wants to do anything really interesting with the
> phone in the long run, they need:
>
> 1) Concessions from cellular providers on things like data plan rates.
> 2) Cooperation in developing new features that require network support.
>
> Promising exclusivity was probably the only reasonable way to get these
> things in the US. Maybe things will work out differently in other
> markets.
Very true. Look at how Apple has used their clout to prevent the content
providers from raising prices on songs sold on iTunes.
The iPhone is a consumer device, not a business device, so the data plan
rates matter a lot. Not a lot of consumers are going to pay $60 per
month for high speed data, but they may be willing to pay $10-15 per
month for medium speed data like EDGE that the iPhone supports. It'll be
very interesting to see the monthly plan prices on the iPhone, since
those prices are what will determine the success or failure of the iPhone.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-16, 12:33 pm |
| At 16 Jan 2007 04:34:31 -0500 ZnU wrote:
>
> Like whether you have a signal, whether your battery is about to die,
> what time it is, and whether you might be racking up unexpected charges
> because you're roaming on another network?
>
> You have an odd definition of "hardly ever useful".
While Iagree that Doc is a little too minimalistic in his status desires,
it's interesting how used to gimmicky status indicators we've become, yet
we rarely use the info in any real way.
I recently dug out my first cellphone, to show my kids how far these
things have come. It was Nokia's first "handheld" (a monster the size of
the old Motorola brick phones.) A 7-digit display (not ten,) "ROAM" and
"NO SVC" indicators instead of a multi-segment signal strength indicator
and network display and an audible low battery chirp instead of a battery
level display.
Remembering back to the heady days of analog cellular, 30 minute/month
buckets, and "handheld" phones that came with shoulder holdsters a la
Mr. Spock's tricorder, I don't remember needing anymore info than the
phone blinked or chirped at me.
It's like the "idiot lights" vs. gauges in a car. I don't need to
constantly monitor my engine water temperature or oil pressure- I just
need to be alerted when something is out of the normal range. If I
notice I have four bars of signal instead of six will it affect if I
answer or take a call? I really just want to know if I can make a call,
which a reliable "No Service" indicator would do.
I'm not personally willing to trade in all my status indicators yet- (I
figure if the display is on, it might as well show something!) but I can
see the point that the information is unnecessary most of the time.
Even the network name display is mostly useless, unless you've memorized
the entire list of your carrier's "friends and foes." Just because my
display switches to "Outer Mongolia Wireless" doesn't necessarily mean
I'll be charged extra- it depends on what carriers your carrier has
roaming agreements with. AT&T Wireless used to have a simply and
effective network display on phones in their old TDMA network. "Home"
meant you were on AT&T's network, "Extended Area" meant you were roaming
on a "friendly" (no extra charge) carrier, and "roam" meant you would be
charged extra to make or take a call. Easy, uncluttered, and no confusion.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-16, 12:33 pm |
| At 16 Jan 2007 11:36:53 -0800 SMS wrote:
> The iPhone is a consumer device, not a business device, so the data
> plan rates matter a lot. Not a lot of consumers are going to pay $60
> per month for high speed data, but they may be willing to pay $10-1
>5 per month for medium speed data like EDGE that the iPhone supports.
> It'll be very interesting to see the monthly plan prices on the iPhone,
> since those prices are what will determine the success or failure of
> the iPhone.
>
I disagree on two points. First, the iPhone will be a "status buy"
primarily- I doubt overpriced data will stop somebody from trying to
impress their friends with a $600 combo phone/Video Nano. The iPod
audio/video functionality alone will justify the purchase for many, even
without data.
Secondly, I don't believe Cingular is going to discount data rates for
this phone in any way, when they don't for other consumer phones-
unlimited will likely be either $20 or $40/month, depending, IMHO, if
Apple locks out the ability to tether the device to a computer. After
the keynote's video demo, Cingular will be too afraid of thousands of
iPhone owners running Google Maps all day to give the data away cheaply!
;-)
I think the iPhone market will mostly be comprised of people that have
never used mobile data before for various reasons. Therefore, what we
might see, IMHO, is some kind of "free data for a month" promo to
convince iPhone users of the awesome value to their lives that overpriced
2.5G data adds! (Sort of the same way satellite TV providers often give
a free month of premium movie channels at signup in hopes that you'll
decide you can't live without them.)
But let's face it- if a flashy video demo from Jobs can convince many
posting here that the iPhone is the greatest leap in technology since the
moon landing, it should be easy to convince those same folks to pay
$40/month to send e-mail on it! ;-)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| In article < 45ad0c47$0$4750$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 16 Jan 2007 11:36:53 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>
> I disagree on two points. First, the iPhone will be a "status buy"
> primarily- I doubt overpriced data will stop somebody from trying to
> impress their friends with a $600 combo phone/Video Nano. The iPod
> audio/video functionality alone will justify the purchase for many, even
> without data.
An iPhone isn't any more expensive than a smart phone + an iPod, so for
anyone who has a use for both, buying an iPhone isn't about status; it's
extremely practical.
I don't buy this idea that mobile data is primarily a business service
which consumers don't want. That seems a little like the famous Ken
Olsen quote that goes:
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
[snip]
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
|
| In article <timmcn-096907.08411416012007@news.iphouse.com>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <znu-81BA23. 04393516012007@indiv
idual.net>,
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> No, they don't. Cellular plan costs are between the service provider
> and the customer. Apple is not the service provider, just the phone
> provider. The analogous situation is Apple having no place in
> negotiating concessions on ISP service costs.
Cell phone providers often offer specific data plans for specific
devices, e.g. Blackberry plans. I have no idea if these plans are a
result of negotiations between the device maker and the cellular
provider, but there's no reason in principle why a device maker with
sufficient leverage could not negotiate rates on such plans.
My impression is that the partnership between Cingular and Apple runs
deeper than is usual in such situations. The two companies may have more
significant long-term plans that a lot of people suspect. It's not to
hard to imagine Jobs selling the Cingular execs on a vision of the
future of mobile voice and data which the two companies could implement
together on both the network and the handset site.
>
> This Apple would need to do. Otherwise the iPhone would be all dressed
> up with nowhere to go.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
| Tim Streater 2007-01-16, 3:33 pm |
| In article <znu-4C1191. 15491316012007@indiv
idual.net>,
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article < 45ad0c47$0$4750$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> An iPhone isn't any more expensive than a smart phone + an iPod, so for
> anyone who has a use for both, buying an iPhone isn't about status; it's
> extremely practical.
>
> I don't buy this idea that mobile data is primarily a business service
> which consumers don't want. That seems a little like the famous Ken
> Olsen quote that goes:
>
> "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Not when the computer was a PDP-10 or Sigma-7, consuming 50-100kW of
juice and requiring a resident engineer :-)
| |
| Madwen 2007-01-16, 3:33 pm |
| In article <timmcn-946C68.19491815012007@news.iphouse.com>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article < 45abb9b8$0$68997$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> ADM has a *LOT* of political clout. With the increasing blurring of
> boundaries between government and the corporate world, this is true of
> many companies. A large percentage of US federal regulations are
> designed to benefit industries rather than citizens.
I would note that this is a recent phenomenon, for the most part, what
with the Delay/Abramoff K Street syndicate fattening Congressional
pockets & writing legislation that legislators never bother to read, the
2-3 day Congressional Washington work week, the proliferation of
incompetent political hacks running federal agencies that used to
protect consumers, the rescission of consumer protections via sometimes
secret Executive Orders written at the behest of corporate campaign
donors, and the nearly complete lack of Congressional oversight.
It wasn't always this way. Consumers previously had many more
protections as well as administrative and legal remedies. These have
mostly been trashed in the last six years whilst nearly the entirely of
US federal government has been turned against the citizen and consumer.
| |
|
| In article
<droleary.usenet-F23B41.05513616012007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <znu-5CDB17. 04343116012007@indiv
idual.net>,
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that T-Mobile is going to be displayed
> in that space any time soon? If not, *given* that the provider is
> not the network, why not just display the shorter network status? As
> I already noted, and you seem unable to grasp, displaying the fact
> that I "roam" or am "home" is more useful to me as a user than
> keeping "cingular" on the screen, especially when I'm not planning on
> making a call.
>
>
> That leaves Apple time to fix things. It would be ludicrous to wait
> until days before shipping (or even afterwards) until bothering to
> bring up usability issues. Your world view seems very backwards.
Frankly I'm not sure how using a device before bringing up usability
issues is particularly "backwards". Especially when the device has what
is in many respects a UI different from what people are used to.
>
> Have you bothered to read my other posts? Yes, those things are
> useless *at least* 90% of them time an iPhone will be in operation.
> The signal only matters when you're using the cellular network, and
> even then you only need to know when the signal is *bad*.
You're always using the cellular network -- it's a cell phone! Even if
I'm not actively making a call, I probably want to know if I've got a
signal good enough that I can *receive* calls in the location where I am.
> The same is true for possible roaming charges. The battery level
> *does* only matter when it is low!
No, it doesn't. If I'm leaving the house, I want to know if my matter
is at full, 3/4, or 1/2. I don't just want to know if it's about to
die.
> Like I said, these are things that are better suited to an overlay.
>
> And the damn *clock* is something you deem that important?
Yes. I stopped carrying a watch years back, and basically use my cell
phone to tell time now. I've commented on this to several people I
know, who've said they've done the same thing.
I don't want to have to hit a button to find out the time.
[snip]
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-16, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 45ad0c47$0$4750$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 16 Jan 2007 11:36:53 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>
> I disagree on two points. First, the iPhone will be a "status buy"
> primarily
And yet is cheaper than the Palm Treo 700 series phones while
potentially having much more capability.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> I disagree on two points. First, the iPhone will be a "status buy"
> primarily- I doubt overpriced data will stop somebody from trying to
> impress their friends with a $600 combo phone/Video Nano. The iPod
> audio/video functionality alone will justify the purchase for many, even
> without data.
To sell the quantities that Apple and Cingular envision, they will have
to sell more than to just the die-hard Apple users, and geeks. The only
reason to buy an iPhone is for the the video over the cellular network
functionality, it's not going to have all the PDA functions, it's on
Cingular, arguably the worst U.S. wireless carrier so you wouldn't buy
it if ubiquitous phone service is important, and there are going to be
less expensive options for audio, for example the Samsung SGH-F300.
Analysts are already warning that despite the huge investments in
network upgrades, almost no one wants to watch video on their phone, and
that prices will have to come down for video usage to increase. If
anyone understands that lower prices mean more widespread usage, it's
the wireless carriers. They need to figure out a way to keep the price
insensitive business users paying $60 per month, while expanding the
market for non-business users. Maybe that's the whole reason that the
iPhone is Edge rather than HSDPA.
> But let's face it- if a flashy video demo from Jobs can convince many
> posting here that the iPhone is the greatest leap in technology since the
> moon landing, it should be easy to convince those same folks to pay
> $40/month to send e-mail on it! ;-)
Those people are the easy ones. It's getting normal users to ante up so
that the volumes will be what Cingular wants. Let's face it, unless you
have a need to download video over the cellular network, a PSP is a lot
more functional for those people that want portable audio and video.
I'm sitting here with four intentionally free wireless networks to
choose from, and almost anywhere I go in the Bay Area I can find a free
wireless network to use. I'd be better off with a Slingbox if I must
have constant access to video programming. UPCs start to look
attractively priced when you factor in the cost of a Cingular contract,
with data service, for two years, plus the price of an iPhone. Of course
we all know that after the early adopters buy the iPhone, prices will
start to plunge in order to build volume.
The novelty will wear off of video on a tiny screen, just as the novelty
wore off of cameras in phones. Few people ever actually send the photos
they take over the network, it's too expensive and the quality sucks.
| |
|
| ZnU wrote:
> In article < 45ad0c47$0$4750$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> An iPhone isn't any more expensive than a smart phone + an iPod, so for
> anyone who has a use for both, buying an iPhone isn't about status; it's
> extremely practical.
The Smart Phones are full PDAs, something that many business users
require. They aren't great music players though.
> I don't buy this idea that mobile data is primarily a business service
> which consumers don't want.
Consumers do want it. Just like they wanted cell phones. But not at the
same prices that businesses and geeks are willing to pay. This has been
proven over and over again. Computers, broadband data, cell phones, big
screen TVs, VCRs, etc. The early adopters pay the big bucks, then prices
fall to the point where the market expands.
> That seems a little like the famous Ken
> Olsen quote that goes:
>
> "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
And you realize that people (non-nerds) wanted computers in their homes
when the prices fell to an acceptable level. When Compaq finally brought
the price of a PC below $1000, suddenly the volumes sky-rocketed. When
DSL came down in price below $30, volumes skyrocketed as non-business
users signed up. When cellular service fell to under $30/month, volumes
skyrocketed.
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-16, 10:33 pm |
| In article <invalid-7CA872.15015716012007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>,
Madwen <invalid@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <timmcn-946C68.19491815012007@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
> I would note that this is a recent phenomenon, for the most part,
> what with the Delay/Abramoff K Street syndicate fattening
> Congressional pockets & writing legislation that legislators never
> bother to read, the 2-3 day Congressional Washington work week, the
> proliferation of incompetent political hacks running federal agencies
> that used to protect consumers, the rescission of consumer
> protections via sometimes secret Executive Orders written at the
> behest of corporate campaign donors, and the nearly complete lack of
> Congressional oversight.
>
> It wasn't always this way. Consumers previously had many more
> protections as well as administrative and legal remedies. These have
> mostly been trashed in the last six years whilst nearly the entirely
> of US federal government has been turned against the citizen and
> consumer.
It's not a new phenomenon, by any means and certainly not restricted to
the moral bankruptcy and malfeasance of the Bush Administration. After
all in 1961 Eisenhower was cautioning the nation against this sort of
thing:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the
huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
If we go back in time, prior to the New Deal, prior to changes in labor
law that allowed unions and collective bargaining, prior to the stock
market crash of 1929, we find the same highly verticalized coziness
between government and big business that is so rampant today. We had
some breathing space to create a large middle class, but that has been
largely shut down now as the gap between the have-somes and the
have-mores grows and grows, leaving the have-littles far behind. Hell,
even the mayor of New York has finally figured out that the poor are not
poor because they are stupid, but most often because they are presented
with extremely limited opportunities.
In the past six years the ascension of huge business representatives
into key positions of government in the Bush Administration has
accelerated this, and over decades changes to campaign finance law
created a legalized system of bribery that is a far greater threat to
our freedom and democracy than a dozen Osama bin Ladens combined.
Like a tree we can only be toppled from without if we first rot from
within or allow our roots to whither. Delay and his ilk have done more
damage to this country than any terrorist could hope to achieve.
| |
|
| In article < 45ad4a88$0$69026$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
> The Smart Phones are full PDAs, something that many business users
> require. They aren't great music players though.
>
>
> Consumers do want it. Just like they wanted cell phones. But not at
> the same prices that businesses and geeks are willing to pay. This
> has been proven over and over again.
Yes, of course, but there are industries where companies get used to
nice fat profit margins, and ignore this lesson. Wireless data fits
this description, at least in the US. While I have no specific
information, I suspect Jobs has been working on the Cingular executives
on this point. This is going to benefit everyone in the long run, not
just Cingular and Apple customers.
> Computers, broadband data, cell phones, big screen TVs, VCRs, etc.
> The early adopters pay the big bucks, then prices fall to the point
> where the market expands.
>
> And you realize that people (non-nerds) wanted computers in their
> homes when the prices fell to an acceptable level. When Compaq
> finally brought the price of a PC below $1000, suddenly the volumes
> sky-rocketed. When DSL came down in price below $30, volumes
> skyrocketed as non-business users signed up. When cellular service
> fell to under $30/month, volumes skyrocketed.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
|
| ZnU wrote:
> Yes, of course, but there are industries where companies get used to
> nice fat profit margins, and ignore this lesson.
As of now there are no profit margins on data at all. The usage is so
low that there are only losses. There will be only be profits if and
when they can sign up mass numbers of users. There are already analysts
that claim that wide-spread free wi-fi will mean that the price that
casual users are willing to pay for cellular data will be very low since
there is no compelling application for most users.
Where I am, on the west coast, Cellular data can fill the gaps in Wi-Fi
coverage for those that must have ubiquitous access.
The iPhone minus the phone part of it would be a great device. A $500
web pad/iPod.
| |
|
| In article < 45ad6253$0$68956$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
>
> As of now there are no profit margins on data at all. The usage is so
> low that there are only losses. There will be only be profits if and
> when they can sign up mass numbers of users.
If this is true, it suggests the carriers badly need companies like
Apple thinking up ways to make cellular data useful to consumers.
[snip]
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
|
| Tim McNamara wrote:
> And yet is cheaper than the Palm Treo 700 series phones while
> potentially having much more capability.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=390&tag=nl.e589
iPhone's missing features:
Third party support.
Browser plug-ins/Flash/Javascript.
Carrier choice.
Phone and data price plans.
Removable battery.
3G.
iChat.
Front facing camera.
Calendar input
Over The Air (OTA) downloads
Wireless syncing.
Office support.
Microsoft Exchange support.
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-16, 10:33 pm |
| In article < iIGdncsxC9qz9zDYnZ2d
nUVZ_o6gnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
CC56 <copycat56@comcast.net> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=390&tag=nl.e589
>
> iPhone's missing features:
>
> Third party support.
As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date. How
much third party support is there for a RAZR?
> Browser plug-ins/Flash/Javascript.
As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date.
> Carrier choice.
At this time. Expect that to change.
> Phone and data price plans.
Not Apple's to set. That's up to Cingular/AT&T. Ask them.
> Removable battery.
As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date.
> 3G.
As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date, or
if Apple partners with a carrier that uses 3G technology.
> iChat.
It's a phone. WTF do you need iChat for? Just call them. Sheesh. BTW
is iChat available on a Blackberry or a Treo?
> Front facing camera.
For video conferencing by cell phone? Do any other cell phones provide
this?
> Calendar input
As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date.
> Over The Air (OTA) downloads
As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date.
> Wireless syncing.
As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date.
> Office support.
Yeah, as soon as Microsoft writes Office for Cell Phones. Get back to
us when that happens.
> Microsoft Exchange support.
That's a feature.
| |
| Tim Adams 2007-01-16, 10:33 pm |
| In article <timmcn-727BEA.19084416012007@news.iphouse.com>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article < iIGdncsxC9qz9zDYnZ2d
nUVZ_o6gnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
> CC56 <copycat56@comcast.net> wrote:
>
~snip
>
>
> As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date, or
> if Apple partners with a carrier that uses 3G technology.
>
and something cingular could add between now and June.
~snip
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
| |
|
| ZnU wrote:
> In article < 45ad6253$0$68956$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If this is true, it suggests the carriers badly need companies like
> Apple thinking up ways to make cellular data useful to consumers.
It needs the carriers to take a leap of faith that lowering data prices
will result in so much increased volume that they will be better off
financially.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-16, 10:33 pm |
| At 16 Jan 2007 13:52:09 -0800 SMS wrote:
> To sell the quantities that Apple and Cingular envision, they will
> have to sell more than to just the die-hard Apple users, and geeks.
Sure- you forgot the "posers"ad the "see and be seen" crowd. ;-)
> The only reason to buy an iPhone is for the the video over the
> cellular network functionality,
Did I miss something in the keynote? I thought there'd be no "mobile
iTunes" so videos (and music) will typically be "sideloaded" onto this
thing from
your PC just like iPod Video users do now. The attraction of this phone
is NOT going to be, nor was it intended to be, IMHO, "video downloads."
At least nothing DRM'd (effectively meaning nothing longer than a movie
trailer!)
> it's not going to have all the PDA functions, it's on Cingular,
> arguably the worst U.S. wireless carrier so you wouldn't buy it if
> ubiquitous phone service is important
Oh, let's agree to disagree there- Cingular isn't the worst carrier for
nationwide coverage (and even if it were, 50 million folks either haven't
noticed or don't seem to care. If their network was that lousy they'd be
churning far more customers than they are now.)
> and there are going to be less expensive options for audio, for
> example the Samsung SGH-F300.
I'm not suggesting (nor are Apple and Cingular expecting) this thing will
be a runaway ubiquitous 50-million selling hit a la the RAZR. I do think
this is likely to be the best selling $500 phone ever, and will attract
the type of customer Cingular wants- high disposable income and easily
fascinated by shiny objects! ;-)
> Analysts are already warning that despite the huge investments in
> network upgrades, almost no one wants to watch video on their phone, and
> that prices will have to come down for video usage to increase.
First, none of that is really iPhone specific- all carriers have that
same problem. Also, that assumes the current paradigm of taking an hour
to download a 22-minute episodes of "The Office" to your RAZR. But the
iPhone will be more like a PMP than a phone in this regard- you'll do
fast downloading at home with your broadband connection then load your
iPhone via USB. This is a different type of convergence device- instead
of a PDA/phone, it's an iPod Video/phone. If you expect people to use it
like an iPod instead of like a UMPC, you'll see the attraction, IF
money's no object. (And let's face it- money is no object to much of the
iPod crowd or they'd likely own cheaper media players in the first place!)
> If anyone understands that lower prices mean more widespread usage,
> it's the wireless carriers. They need to figure out a way to keep
> the price insensitive business users paying $60 per month, while
> expanding the market for
> non-business users. Maybe that's the whole reason that the iPhone
> is Edge rather than HSDPA.
I don't think the iPhone is designed to bring cellular data to the
unwashed masses. I suspect it's main job, from Cingular's point-of-view
is the trickle-down effect. The iPhone is an exclusive, flagship product,
that will generate a lot of buzz. A boatload of people will come into
Cingular stores to oooh and ahh at it, then walk out with much cheaper
Syncs and Blackjacks (if the Cingular salesforce is up to the task.) No
one expects a $500 phone to outsell a $100 phone, period.
>
> Those people are the easy ones. It's getting normal users to ante
> up so that the volumes will be what Cingular wants.
The "normal user" isn't buying a $500 phone even if it has a Roomba built-
in. The iPhone is off the table for them probably. I've been out of the
cellular biz for a few years (I'm a recovering ex-Cingular dealer...) but
if it were my store, I'd use an iPhone demo to qualify the customer's
interests- dazzle folks with the "full" iPhone demo, and then read from
them what feature(s) it had that were MOST important to the customer- if
music, suggest the Sync or ROKR as cheaper alternatives, was it e-mail,
how about a Blackberry or 3125, etc.
> Let's face it, unless you have a need to download video over the
> cellular network, a PSP is a lot more functional for those people
> that want portable audio and video.
Why? The iPhone IS an 8MB PMP with a phone built-in, reducing the number
of devices you need to schlep around, making anyone with both an iPod and
a phone on his belt a target for this product. Plus it apparently has a
decent WAP/web browser, at least compared to any other phone out there now,
making mobile browsing less painful, which expands the potential user
base of that so far underadopted market. Mobile web use hasn't been
hampered by speed as much as UI. If the iPhone makes it EASY to check
Google and eBay on the road on a decent looking display, no one will
really balk at the slowness of EDGE.
> I'm sitting here with four intentionally free wireless networks to
> choose from, and almost anywhere I go in the Bay Area I can find
> a free wireless network to use.
That's you, Mr. West Coast. ;-) Here in the Denver suburbs, if I'm not
at home, I'd better be thirsty for coffee, need to pickup something at
the library, or be sitting in a residential cul-de-sac like a thief
casing his next target to have Wi-Fi access. The "real" Midwest (Kansas
City, Omaha, etc.) is even worse.
> I'd be better off with a Slingbox
> if I must have constant access to video programming.
I don't know where you're getting this "mobile video download" being the
star of the show idea from. This unit will rely on you loading videos
(hopefully purchased with iTunes, I'm guessing) via USB. Think of it as
a fancy iPod-Video with a phone not VOD over cellular.
> UPCs start to look attractively priced when you factor in the cost
> of a Cingular contract, with data service, for two years, plus the
> price of an iPhone.
If tethering is off the table (which I assume it will be) this might
qualify for Cingular's unlimited MEdia Net plan at $20/month. (Unless
Cingular goes for the jugular and determines it's a "Smartphone" for $40.)
> Of course we all know that after the early adopters buy the iPhone,
> prices will start to plunge in order to build volume.
But to where? $400? $300? Certainly no lower else it would eat into
the $200 8MB Nano market, which can't do video (but should!)
> The novelty will wear off of video on a tiny screen, just as the
> novelty wore off of cameras in phones.
The iPhone has a 3.5" screen, which rivals most PMPs in $200-300 price
range. As to the "novelty" of cameras, it may have worn off, but only
because they're now ubiquitous- no self-respecting $100+ phone lacks one,
except those targeted at enterprise users.
> Few people ever actually send the photos they take over the network,
> it's too expensive and the quality sucks.
Not if you're in the pimpled age bracket. MMS'ing photos is almost as
hip as spelling words with single letters. ;-)
The iPhone will be a qualified success- it won't be the phone everyone
buys, but it'll be the phone everyone wants, and Cingular will leverage
iPhone's assumed technological superiority into a positive technological
perception of the "new AT&T."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| In article <timmcn-25FA7A.15472116012007@news.iphouse.com>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article < 45ad0c47$0$4750$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> And yet is cheaper than the Palm Treo 700 series phones while
> potentially having much more capability.
The 700 is a Windows abomination. Better value with the 680
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article < 45ad0c47$0$4750$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> And yet is cheaper than the Palm Treo 700 series phones
eh? the treo 700s currently run either $300-$400 w/ a 2 year contract
(depending on carrier). and i bet you can find it cheaper in 6
months...
<snip>
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-16, 10:33 pm |
| In article <1169003405.692535.35930@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> eh? the treo 700s currently run either $300-$400 w/ a 2 year
> contract (depending on carrier). and i bet you can find it cheaper
> in 6 months...
The list price for a Treo is $600+. We've yet to see Cingular's
with-contract pricing. We've only heard Apple's price.
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-16, 10:33 pm |
| In article <labolide-94324A.18445116012007@news.giganews.com>,
Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> In article <timmcn-25FA7A.15472116012007@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
> The 700 is a Windows abomination. Better value with the 680
700p appears to use PalmOS. Haven't seen one in person.
| |
|
| In news:timmcn-558B70.21442416012007@news.iphouse.com,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> typed:
> In article <1169003405.692535.35930@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>
> The list price for a Treo is $600+. We've yet to see Cingular's
> with-contract pricing. We've only heard Apple's price.
the price apple announced was with 2 year contract from cingular. also on
press release at cingular's site, with same price.
| |
|
| In article <Ejirh.32296$QU1.7680@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
"ed" <news_test@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> In news:timmcn-558B70.21442416012007@news.iphouse.com,
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> typed:
>
> the price apple announced was with 2 year contract from cingular. also on
> press release at cingular's site, with same price.
Yes, the iPhone is a bit more expensive. It also has vastly better
specs, and compared with buying both a smart phone *and* an iPod, it's a
very good idea.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
|
| In article < 45ad865a$0$68974$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
> It needs the carriers to take a leap of faith that lowering data prices
> will result in so much increased volume that they will be better off
> financially.
This is the sort of thing Jobs is famous for talking people into.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
| Doc O'Leary 2007-01-17, 10:33 am |
| In article <znu-07A620. 16184716012007@indiv
idual.net>,
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> Frankly I'm not sure how using a device before bringing up usability
> issues is particularly "backwards". Especially when the device has what
> is in many respects a UI different from what people are used to.
There is nothing at all "think different" about that stupid status bar.
It's the same old shit that every phone displays, yet it is useless most
of the time. You don't need to use the iPhone to see how vanilla that
part is, and as such it sticks out like a sore thumb.
> You're always using the cellular network -- it's a cell phone! Even if
> I'm not actively making a call, I probably want to know if I've got a
> signal good enough that I can *receive* calls in the location where I am.
None of which supports your point. You do *not* always care about that
stuff, and that is especially true as you pack more features into your
phone. Is there some Bluetooth module for the iPod that I don't know
about that connects it to your cell phone so that you'll know its signal
level when you pull out the iPod? If not, how does it make any more
sense to have *this* iPod do it? And when you *do* care to know it, as
I have clearly stated many times, what matters most is when it is low.
> No, it doesn't. If I'm leaving the house, I want to know if my matter
> is at full, 3/4, or 1/2. I don't just want to know if it's about to
> die.
Why? What are you going to do about it in all those cases that you need
it displayed *all* the time? Note that nothing about what I proposed
*prevents* you from looking at the details when you leave (or whenever);
my objection is to the constant bombardment of data that is not
constantly useful.
> I don't want to have to hit a button to find out the time.
How do you not realize that you *do* have to hit buttons to see the time
in the status bar? I already pointed out that the iPhone idle screen
seems to display a prominent clock. Nothing you have posted in any way
supports the functionality of anything they put in the status bar. Why
are you fighting so hard to keep that screen-wasting abomination?
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
| |
| Doc O'Leary 2007-01-17, 10:33 am |
| In article < 45ad01cd$0$4826$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> AT&T Wireless used to have a simply and
> effective network display on phones in their old TDMA network. "Home"
> meant you were on AT&T's network, "Extended Area" meant you were roaming
> on a "friendly" (no extra charge) carrier, and "roam" meant you would be
> charged extra to make or take a call. Easy, uncluttered, and no confusion.
Heh. I *still* have that kind of phone! Maybe that's part of why I'm
missing how needlessly complicated using a phone has seemingly become.
Cingular is now trying to force GSM-only on us, but their timing could
hardly be worse with respect to the iPhone coming just months after they
try to force a less phone on us. It's enough to have me saying "screw
it" to the whole iPhone/Cingular thing and go for a T-Mobile prepaid
until the madness dies down.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
| |
|
| In article <timmcn-050C00.21450916012007@news.iphouse.com>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <labolide-94324A.18445116012007@news.giganews.com>,
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 700p appears to use PalmOS. Haven't seen one in person.
Yes p is Palm w is Windows.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-17, 10:33 am |
| At 16 Jan 2007 19:08:44 -0600 Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date.
It's been pretty well documented that Apple is going to keep a tight
reign on development. To be fair, there's a lot a wiggle room between
"no third party support" and "tight control." I suspect there will be
"Apple approved/certified" third-party support, but nothing like the free-
for-all that Palm, Symbian, and WinMobile-based platforms offer.
> How
> much third party support is there for a RAZR?
You really want to go there? A post ago, you were comparing the iPhone
to a Treo (with the obvious implication that the Treo was inferior or
less featured) and now you're content to match the feature set of a RAZR?
Well, a RAZR can use java applets (and perhaps so can iPhone.) However,
the RAZR is currently $400-500 less than an iPhone will be. I'd hope an
iPhone has a larger feature set than a RAZR!
You claimed the iPhone's superiority to the Treo 700, so let's put the
shoe back on your foot- what CAN'T the Treo do that the iPhone CAN?
(Other than multi-touch and an uncanny ability to detect the presence of
the human ear!)
>
> At this time. Expect that to change.
Yes. In 2009. IIRC, Cingular has an 18-month exclusive in the USA.
>
> As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date.
It might also be bright purple and have an integrated corkscrew by June
as well. If you're going to play "everything that's criticized about it
might be corrected by June" why are we even playing? Apple sent the
iPhone off to the FCC for type acceptance the day after the keynote. We
can safely assume the hardware will be relatively unchanged (unless Apple
burned the midnight oil redesigning it the night after the keynote), but
the software, obviously, is up for grabs.
>
> As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date, or
> if Apple partners with a carrier that uses 3G technology.
Cingular IS a 3G carrier- Apple's already partnered with one! Again, we
could check with the FCC over the next six months- if the iPhone doesn't
grow the 2.1GHz band it won't be 3G for Cingular.
>
> It's a phone. WTF do you need iChat for? Just call them. Sheesh.
> BTW is iChat available on a Blackberry or a Treo?
I'm not a Mac guy,(nor do I use IM) so pardon my ignorance- is iChat an
IM program? If so, AIM, MSN Messenger, etc. are available for the Treo
at least.
(And, frankly, "sheesh, it's a phone" is NOT a good excuse for a missing
feature! You could shrug off a lack of video capability with "sheesh,
it's a phone not a theater! Call someone and have them describe a movie
to you!" ;-)
>
> For video conferencing by cell phone? Do any other cell phones provide
> this?
Not in the US, AFAIK. I'll give you this one! Cingular requested the
front camera be removed from their Windows Mobile-based 8525. Other (non-
US) versions of that phone have a front-facing camera.
>
> As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date.
Yep, "May change in the future" is becoming a classic. I hear Apple
might put that in the brochures...
>
> As of yet, as far as we know, etc. May change by the release date.
I'll be generous and give you this one too. It's likely an iTunes issue-
perhaps iTunes isn't ready to support wireless sync by June. If it has
nothing to wirelessly sync to, the iPhone can't support wireless sync,
can it? There's nothing magical about wireless sync that iPhone couldn't
support it later if the powers that be choose to add it.
>
> Yeah, as soon as Microsoft writes Office for Cell Phones. Get back to
> us when that happens.
It's called Office Mobile and it's included with every PPC phone
including the Palm 700wx series. Lesser WinMo models (those without
touchscreens) get a stripped-down version that allows viewing Office files,
but not editing them.
>
> That's a feature.
A feature missing from the iPhone, I believe. They offer "push" Yahoo e-
mail, which, IMO, is pefectly acceptable, but it further illustrates the
target market for the iPhone is NOT the enterprise, but iPod users with
large wallets. For all of it's bells and whistles, it's a high-end
consumer device, not a business one.
There's nothing wrong with that, BTW, it just makes direct comparisons
between it and an enterprise device like a Treo about as meaningful as a
comparison between a motorcycle and a pick-up truck.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 16 Jan 2007 19:08:44 -0600 Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>
> It's been pretty well documented that Apple is going to keep a tight
> reign on development. To be fair, there's a lot a wiggle room between
> "no third party support" and "tight control." I suspect there will be
> "Apple approved/certified" third-party support, but nothing like the free-
> for-all that Palm, Symbian, and WinMobile-based platforms offer.
It's a mistake to compare the Treo to an iPhone. Even Jobs admitted that
the iPhone, at least the initial iPhone, is not a PDA. It can do web
browsing and e-mail, but you don't get the extensive application set and
expandability that is available for PalmOS or PocketPC devices. Yes,
these third-party applications and add-on cards sometimes cause
instability problems, but usually they're fine.
As a portable web browser with 802.11, MP3 player, and e-mail device,
the iPhone is well priced even without the phone function. Apple should
do a version without the phone, and without the two-year contract.
$500 is a lot for a phone, but not a lot for a web-pad with a screen of
that size, and for a lot of people all they ever want to do on a PDA is
e-mail and web-browsing.
Personally, I use my PDA as a GPS, as a navigation device with the
DeLorme software, as a TV remote with a consumer IR module, as a music
player, a web browser, an e-mail device, an educational device, a
translator, and I can input (and output) in English and Chinese
characters with some cool software from Hong Kong. I love the hardware
and software expandability. The iPhone is a totally different animal,
and people shouldn't be lumping it in with PDA Smart Phones.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-17, 12:33 pm |
| At 16 Jan 2007 15:49:13 -0500 ZnU wrote:
> An iPhone isn't any more expensive than a smart phone + an iPod, so for
> anyone who has a use for both, buying an iPhone isn't about status;
> it's extremely practical.
IF the iPhone matches the feature set of the smartphone, yes.
> I don't buy this idea that mobile data is primarily a business service
> which consumers don't want.
If that's your theory, then you need to explain it's poor adoption so
far. (Don't worry- we'll get to it below.)
> That seems a little like the famous Ken
> Olsen quote that goes:
>
> "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
To be fair, if you consider "the computer" to be the device that existed
when he made the quote, he was right! ;-)
As to mobile data, cellular companies are afraid to price "usable" data
plans too low else they might gut their $60-80/month enterprise data
business. If you "give away" data so that price-finicky consumers will
buy it, you erode that high price business market.
Therefore, (if you're the wireless company) you need to "gut" low-price
plans either by throttling speed, limiting amount of transfer, or
limiting access (no tethering, no streaming, etc.) or else your $60
business data customer can just take a $20 consumer-level plan.
As to widespread adoption, why do consumers resist mobile data use, when
data rates are relatively low (unlimited can be had for $6-20/month for
most phones.) IMHO, until the UI or at least the "user experience
improves"- and that means display and input, data will be primarily for
suits and geeks. For example, my wife, who's no technophobe, used my PPC
Phone a few weeks ago on a long road trip to check her OWA mail. After
doing what she needed to do, she handed the phone back and said "how to
do you get any work done on that thing?" My own geekness aside, most
people will simply not embrace mobile data on 2" screens, or through 12-
key input.
Perhaps mobile data is still waiting for the killer app- perhaps the
traditional web browser/e-mail client isn't it. For example, this week,
RCN Wireless News reports Amp'd Mobile is doing very well with mobile
data- their customer base _averages_ $30/month on data, and 60% of that
is downloadable content rather than web browsing, etc. Those are numbers
that would make any carrier jealous. So, maybe content rather than
information is what will fuel widespread wireless data use.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-17, 12:33 pm |
| At 17 Jan 2007 08:03:54 -0600 Doc O'Leary wrote:
> There is nothing at all "think different" about that stupid status bar.
"Think different" doesn't necessarily mean "throw out something that
works just to be different."
> It's the same old shit that every phone displays, yet it is useless
most
> of the time.
To you, perhaps. Maybe the fact that "every phone displays" it means
it's a feature set people want.
Apple could really "think different" and leave the microphone off, and we
can all call each other via video and communicate through interpretive
dance. That'd be "different," huh?
> You don't need to use the iPhone to see how vanilla that
> part is, and as such it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Perhaps. Certainly nothing to get worked up about, but that's just my
opinion. A status bar is usful if I need it, and easy to ignore when I
don't.
> Why
> are you fighting so hard to keep that screen-wasting abomination?
While this wasn't directed at me, the old axiom "can't hurt, might help"
springs to mind. It's phone for crissakes, not a work of art. You're
reacting to placing a status bar on the iPhone like they were going to
rent advertising space on the Mona Lisa!
The phone's six months away. I'm sure by launch we'll all find other
things to hate about it more than a status bar! ;-)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Tom Reestman 2007-01-17, 12:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock (elecconnec@AmericaO
nLine.com) got drunk after typing this
drivel in news:45ae4154$0$4836
$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> At 16 Jan 2007 19:08:44 -0600 Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>
> It's been pretty well documented that Apple is going to keep a tight
> reign on development. To be fair, there's a lot a wiggle room between
> "no third party support" and "tight control." I suspect there will be
> "Apple approved/certified" third-party support, but nothing like the
> free- for-all that Palm, Symbian, and WinMobile-based platforms offer.
>
I think eventually you'll find apps (some Apple, some not), on the iTunes
store for purchase on the phone. I hope it doesn't become a "free-for-
all", but I hope Apple doesn't keep thing too tight, either. For now, I
think Apple's concentrating on getting any kinks worked out before
putting additional apps on.
>
> You really want to go there? A post ago, you were comparing the
> iPhone to a Treo (with the obvious implication that the Treo was
> inferior or less featured) and now you're content to match the feature
> set of a RAZR?
>
> Well, a RAZR can use java applets (and perhaps so can iPhone.)
> However, the RAZR is currently $400-500 less than an iPhone will be.
> I'd hope an iPhone has a larger feature set than a RAZR!
>
> You claimed the iPhone's superiority to the Treo 700, so let's put the
> shoe back on your foot- what CAN'T the Treo do that the iPhone CAN?
> (Other than multi-touch and an uncanny ability to detect the presence
> of the human ear!)
>
Agreed. This must be compared to Smartphones, though even that isn't
really the target market. This is not an MS Exchange device, nor will it
run pocket Office apps. So what is the market, maybe a Smartphone for the
rest of us? :-)
>
> Yes. In 2009. IIRC, Cingular has an 18-month exclusive in the USA.
>
I have seen no definitive timetable for the duration of Cingular's
exclusive agreement. Certainly, for those who buy it initially they are
on a 2-year plan so it won't matter, but I don't confuse the 2-year plan
with the duration of the agreement. Those two items do not have to be the
same.
>
> It might also be bright purple and have an integrated corkscrew by
> June as well. If you're going to play "everything that's criticized
> about it might be corrected by June" why are we even playing? Apple
> sent the iPhone off to the FCC for type acceptance the day after the
> keynote. We can safely assume the hardware will be relatively
> unchanged (unless Apple burned the midnight oil redesigning it the
> night after the keynote), but the software, obviously, is up for
> grabs.
>
The battery is not replaceable. This has been confirmed in several
places.
>
> Cingular IS a 3G carrier- Apple's already partnered with one! Again,
> we could check with the FCC over the next six months- if the iPhone
> doesn't grow the 2.1GHz band it won't be 3G for Cingular.
>
Cingular's 3G network is preety sparse in the US (and expensive), so I
think Apple just decided to wait. After all, there are a lot of other
things they need to get right. I do assume they will not rollout in
Europe or Asia without 3G, but that's not until the end of the year.
>
> I'm not a Mac guy,(nor do I use IM) so pardon my ignorance- is iChat
> an IM program? If so, AIM, MSN Messenger, etc. are available for the
> Treo at least.
>
> (And, frankly, "sheesh, it's a phone" is NOT a good excuse for a | | |