|
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
|
|
|
| http://www.time.com/time/nation/art...1575737,00.html
Tuesday, Jan. 09, 2007
Apple's New Calling: The iPhone
By Lev Grossman
If you've ever wondered how it works, this is how it works: I don't
call Steve, Steve calls me. Or more accurately, someone in Steve
Jobs's office calls someone in my office—someone at a much higher pay
grade —to say that he has something cool. I then fly to the
metastasized strip mall called Cupertino, Calif., where Apple lives,
sign some legal confidentiality stuff and am escorted to a conference
room that contains Jobs, some associates, and some lumps concealed
under some black towels. I stare at what was under the towels.
Everybody else stares at me.
This is how Apple, and nobody else, introduces new products to the
press. It can be awkward, because Jobs is high-strung and he expects
you to be impressed. I was, fortunately, and with good reason. Apple's
new iPhone could do to the cell phone market what the iPod did to the
portable music player market: crush it pitilessly beneath the weight
of its own superiority. This is unfortunate for anybody else who makes
cell phones, but it's good news for those of us who use them.
It's also good news for Jobs. Apple has had some explaining to do
lately about backdated stock options it issued to Jobs and some other
senior Apple executives. An internal investigation has cleared Jobs,
but a federal investigation and a shareholder lawsuit are still going
forward.
Sure, backdating options is common in Silicon Valley, but the essence
of Apple's identity is that it's an uncorporate corporation: a glossy
white iPod-colored company, the kind that doesn't get mixed up in this
kind of thing. When Jobs calls the iPhone "the most important product
Apple has ever announced, with the possible exception of the Apple II
and the Macintosh," he means, technologically. But now is not a
terrible time to be hitting a home run.
The iPhone developed the way a lot of cool things do: with a false
start. A few years ago Jobs noticed how many development dollars were
being spent—particularly in the greater Seattle metropolitan area—on
what are called tablet PCs: flat, portable computers that work with a
touchscreen instead of a mouse and keyboard. Jobs, being Jobs, figured
he could do better, so he had Apple engineers noodle around with a
tablet PC. When they showed him the touchscreen they came up with, he
got excited. So excited he forgot all about tablet computers.
Jobs had just led Apple on a triumphant rampage through a new market
sector, portable music players, and he was looking around for more
technology to conquer. Cell phones are perfect because even Grandma
has one: consumers bought nearly a billion of them last year. Break
off just 1% of that and you can buy yourself a lot of black
turtlenecks. Cell phones do all kinds of stuff—calling, text
messaging, Web browsing, contact management, music playback, photos
and video—but they do it very badly, by forcing you to press lots of
tiny buttons, navigate diverse heterogeneous interfaces and squint at
a tiny screen. "Everybody hates their phone," Jobs says, "and that's
not a good thing. And there's an opportunity there." To Jobs's
perfectionist eyes, phones are broken. Jobs likes things that are
broken. It means he can make something that isn't and sell it to you
for a premium price.
That was why, two and a half years ago, Jobs sicced his wrecking crew
of designers and engineers on the cell phone as we know and hate it.
They began by melting the face off a video iPod. No clickwheel, no
keypad. They sheared off the entire front and replaced it with a huge,
bright, vivid screen—that touchscreen Jobs got so excited about a few
paragraphs ago. When you need to dial, it shows you a keypad; when you
need other buttons, the screen serves them up. When you want to watch
a video, the buttons disappear. Suddenly, the interface isn't fixed
and rigid, it's fluid and molten. Software replaces hardware.
Into that iPod they stuffed a working version of Apple's operating
system, OS X, so the phone could handle real, non-toy applications
like Web browsers and e-mail clients. They put in a cell antenna, plus
two more antennas for WiFi and Bluetooth; plus a bunch of sensors, so
the phone knows how bright its screen should be, and whether it should
display vertically or horizontally, and when it should turn off the
touchscreen so you don't accidentally operate it with your ear.
Then Jonathan Ive, Apple's head of design, the man who shaped the iMac
and the iPod, squashed the case to less than half an inch thick, and
widened it to what looks like a bar of expensive chocolate wrapped in
aluminum and stainless steel. The iPhone is a typical piece of Ive
design: an austere, abstract, platonic-looking form that somehow also
manages to feel warm and organic and ergonomic. Unlike my phone. He
picks it up and points out four little nubbins on the back. "Your
phone's got feet on," he says, not unkindly. "Why would anybody put
feet on a phone?" Ive has the answer, of course: "It raises the
speaker on the back off the table. But the right solution is to put
the speaker in the right place in the first place. That's why our
speaker isn't on the bottom, so you can have it on the table, and you
don't need feet." Sure enough, no feet toe the iPhone's smooth lines.
All right, so it's pretty. Now pick it up and make a call. A big
friendly icon appears on that huge screen. Say a second call comes in
while you're talking. Another icon appears. Tap that second icon and
you switch to the second call. Tap the big "merge calls" icon and
you've got a three-way conference call. Pleasantly simple.
Another example: voicemail. Until now you've had to grope through your
v-mail by ear, blindly, like an eyeless cave-creature. On the iPhone
you see all your messages laid out visually, onscreen, labeled by
caller. If you want to hear one, you touch it. Done. Now try a text
message: Instead of jumbling them all together in your in-box, iPhone
arranges your texts by recipient, as threaded conversations made of
little jewel-like bubbles. And instead of "typing" on a four-by-four
number keypad, you get a full, usable QWERTY keyboard. You will never
again have to hit the 7 key four times to type a letter S.
Now forget about phone calls. Look at the video, which is impressively
crisp and plays on a screen larger than the video iPod's. This is the
first time the hype about "rich media" on a phone has actually looked
plausible. Look at the e-mail client, which handles attachments,
in-line images, HTML e-mails as adroitly as a desktop client. Look at
the Web browser, a modified version of Safari that displays actual Web
pages, not a teensy crunched-down version of the Web. There's a Google
map application that's almost worth the price of admission on its own.
Weaknesses? Absolutely. You can't download songs directly onto it from
the iTunes store, you have to export them from a computer. And even
though it's got WiFi and Bluetooth on it, you can't sync iPhone with a
computer wirelessly. And there should be games on it. And you're
required to use it as a phone—you can't use it without signing up for
cellular service. Boo.
The iPhone breaks two basic axioms of consumer technology. One, when
you take an application and put it on a phone, that application must
be reduced to a crippled and annoying version of itself. Two, when you
take two devices—such as an iPod and a phone—and squish them into one,
both devices must necessarily become lamer versions of themselves. The
iPhone is a phone, an iPod, and a mini-Internet computer all at once,
and contrary to Newton—who knew a thing or two about apples—they all
occupy the same space at the same time, but without taking a hit in
performance. In a way iPhone is the wrong name for it. It's a handheld
computing platform that just happens to contain a phone.
Why is Apple able to do things most other companies can't? Partly by
charging for it: The iPhone will cost $499 for a 4GB model, $599 for
8GB, which makes it expensive, but not a luxury item. And partly
because the company has highly diverse talent who are good at
hardware, software, industrial design and Internet services. Most
companies just do one or two things well.
Unlike most competitors, Apple also places an inordinate emphasis on
interface design. It sweats the cosmetic details that don't seem very
important until you really sweat them. "I actually have a
photographer's loupe that I use to look to make sure every pixel is
right," says Scott Forstall, Apple's vice-president of Platform
Experience (whatever that is). "We will argue over literally a single
pixel." As a result, when you swipe your finger across the screen to
unlock the iPhone, you're not just accessing a system of nested menus,
you're entering a tiny universe, where data exist as bouncy, gemlike,
animated objects that behave according to consistent rules of virtual
physics. Because there's no intermediary input device—like a mouse or
a keyboard—there's a powerful illusion that you're physically handling
data with your fingers. You can pinch an image with two fingers and
make it smaller.
To witness the iPhone launch from behind the curtain (or under the
towel) is to see the controlling hand of Steve Jobs, for whom this is
an almost mystically significant year. He's 52 years old. It's been 30
years since he founded Apple (with Stephen Wozniak), and 10 since he
returned there after having been fired. In that decade Apple's stock
has gone up more than 1,000%. Neither age nor success (nor cancer
surgery in 2004) have significantly mellowed him, though some of the
silver in his beard is creeping into his hair. All technologists
believe their products are better than other people's, or at least
they say they do, but Jobs believes it a little more than most. In the
hours we spent talking about the iPhone, Jobs trash-talked the Treo,
the BlackJack, the Sony PSP and the Sony Mylo ("just garbage compared
to this"), Windows Vista ("It's just a copy of an old version of Mac
OSX") and of course Microsoft's would-be iPod killer, Zune.
Jobs's zealousness about product development— and enforcing his
personal vision—remains as relentless as ever. He keeps Apple's
management structure unusually flat for a 20,000-person company, so he
can see what's happening at ground level. There is just one committee
in the whole of Apple, to establish prices. I can't think of a
comparable company that does no—zero—market research with its
customers before releasing a product. Ironically, Jobs's personal
style could not be more at odds with the brand he has created. If the
motto for Apple's consumers is "think different," the motto for Apple
employees is "think like Steve."
The same goes for Apple's partners. The last time Apple experimented
with a phone, the largely unsuccessful ROKR, Jobs let Motorola make
it, an unsatisfying experiment. "What we learned was that we wouldn't
be satisfied with glomming iTunes onto a regular phone," Jobs says.
"We realized through that experience that for us to be happy, for us
to be proud, we were going to have to do it all."
Apple's arrogance can inspire resentment, which is one reason for some
of the glee over Jobs's stock options woes: taking pleasure in seeing
a special person knocked down a peg is a great American pastime. (Jobs
declines to talk about the options issue.) But there's no point in
pretending that Jobs isn't special. A college dropout, whose
biological parents gave him up for adoption, Jobs has presided over
four major game-changing product launches: the Apple II, the
Macintosh, the iPod, and the iPhone; five if you count the release of
Pixar's Toy Story, which I'm inclined to. He's like Willy Wonka and
Harry Potter rolled up into one.
That doesn't mean Apple can operate beyond the boundaries of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, but the iPhone wouldn't have
happened without Apple's "we're special" attitude. One reason there's
limited innovation in cell phones generally is that the cell carriers
have stiff guidelines that the manufacturers have to follow. They
demand that all their handsets work the same way. "A lot of times, to
be honest, there's some hubris, where they think they know better,"
Jobs says. "They dictate what's on the phone. That just wouldn't work
for us, because we want to innovate. Unless we could do that, it
wasn't worth doing." Jobs demanded special treatment from his phone
service partner, Cingular, and he got it. He even forced Cingular to
re-engineer its infrastructure to handle the iPhone's unique voicemail
scheme. "They broke all their typical process rules to make it
happen," says Tony Fadell, who heads Apple's iPod division. "They were
infected by this product, and they were like, we've gotta do this!"
Now that the precedent has been set, it'll be interesting to see if
other cell phone makers start demanding Apple-style treatment from
wireless carriers. It'll also be worth watching to see how successful
they'll be in knocking off the iPhone's all-screen form factor, which
will be very difficult without Apple's touchscreen technology. Apple
has filed for around 200 patents associated with the iPhone, building
an imposing legal wall. Considering the size of the market, the stakes
are high. The phone market is, of course, divided into armed camps by
carrier, and so far the iPhone is exclusive with Cingular. Apple has
sold 100 million iPods worldwide, but Cingular has only 58 million
customers. Apple expects to launch the iPhone abroad in the fourth
quarter of this year.
It's not quite right to call the iPhone revolutionary. It won't create
a new market, or change the entertainment industry, the way the iPod
did. When you get right down to it, the device doesn't even have that
many new features—it's not like Jobs invented voicemail, or text
messaging, or conference calling, or mobile Web browsing. He just
noticed that they were broken, and he fixed them.
But that's important. When our tools don't work, we tend to blame
ourselves, for being too stupid or not reading the manual or having
too-fat fingers. "I think there's almost a belligerence—people are
frustrated with their manufactured environment," says Ive. "We tend to
assume the problem is with us, and not with the products we're trying
to use." In other words, when our tools are broken, we feel broken.
And when somebody fixes one, we feel a tiny bit more whole.
| |
| Quiet Desperation 2007-01-10, 4:33 am |
| In article < ljt8q21i4vkojsadmup5
ct90c34mpb4fo4@4ax.com>,
EGV <EGV@a34w.com> wrote:
> I was, fortunately, and with good reason.
I luv me some Mac and iPod, but I had no interest in the iPhone. I
didn't think Apple could do anything with the cell phone I would carre
about.
Until today.
Frak me, but it's almost a Mac Mini in my pocket. I read somewhere it's
motion sensitive like the Wii controller, and to zoom in on the web
browser you just squeeze the side. I have not seen such a sweet gadget
since... I dunno when.
And my current Sprint contract *just* ended.
The only bummer is the camera. My place of employment does not allow
camera phones. I really wish cameras were optional in all phones.
| |
| Jolly Roger 2007-01-10, 4:33 am |
| On 2007-01-09 23:43:26 -0600, Quiet Desperation <x@x.com> said:
> The only bummer is the camera. My place of employment does not allow
> camera phones. I really wish cameras were optional in all phones.
So don't tell them it has a phone in it - geez! : )
--
JR
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2007-01-10, 4:33 am |
| Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on America's
Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
technically superior CDMA.
"Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@null.org> wrote in message
news:200701092354408
5301-jollyroger@nullorg...
> On 2007-01-09 23:43:26 -0600, Quiet Desperation <x@x.com> said:
>
>
> So don't tell them it has a phone in it - geez! : )
>
> --
> JR
>
| |
|
| Mij Adyaw wrote:
> It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
> technically superior CDMA.
not really. GSM is the most popular mobile technology worldwide. Many
decisions are not based on what is technically superior.
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-10, 7:33 am |
| In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
> GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.
Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not
partnering with Apple.
But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-01-10, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 22:12:40 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com>
wrote:
>Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on America's
>Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
>technically superior CDMA.
>
Thanks for the TROLL .
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-01-10, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>
>
>Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not
>partnering with Apple.
>
>But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
>gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.
First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
capability,
secondly Sprint always comes in worse, whther its
J.D. Power, the Yankee Group, or Consumer Reports.
Pick a year 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003;
the results are the same. Sprint is worst.
| |
| Calum 2007-01-10, 10:33 am |
| Quiet Desperation wrote:
> In article < ljt8q21i4vkojsadmup5
ct90c34mpb4fo4@4ax.com>,
> EGV <EGV@a34w.com> wrote:
>
>
> I luv me some Mac and iPod, but I had no interest in the iPhone. I
> didn't think Apple could do anything with the cell phone I would carre
> about.
I still don't. Just give me the widescreen iPod without all that other
crap :)
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
> capability,
Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is
consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.
Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide, so
they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also,
Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up that
revenue stream to Apple.
The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially given
the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell a version
of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot so users can
insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want.
The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost always
the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one for $500
or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple will have a winner.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-01-10, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:41:31 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is
>consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.
Only if you include the Analog coverage.
>
>Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide, so
>they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also,
>Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up that
>revenue stream to Apple.
No Apple went with Cingular, cause Cingular gave Apple the freedom to
design the phone with no strings, and Cingular agreed to provide
random access voice mail.
>
>The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially given
>the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell a version
>of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot so users can
>insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want.
The phone may well have 3G by the time it comes out in June.
>
>The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost always
>the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one for $500
>or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple will have a winner.
So you're a Verizon shill ?
You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews.
http://www.i4u.com/article7607.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/t...per&oref=slogin
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technol...a
rd.html
A better ipod.
A better "Blackberry" type phone
A better internet device with True html =browser.', and WiFi
A better UI.
A phone without buttons that will make calls when you sit down and
case presses those buttons.
And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out,
it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all
running Apple's OS X.
| |
| P.Schuman 2007-01-10, 10:33 am |
|
< karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote in message
news:vnv9q2hkqi4v7va
2bqmiicc8fhml2jvfl9@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:41:31 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Only if you include the Analog coverage.
>
>
>
> No Apple went with Cingular, cause Cingular gave Apple the freedom to
> design the phone with no strings, and Cingular agreed to provide
> random access voice mail.
>
>
> The phone may well have 3G by the time it comes out in June.
>
>
> So you're a Verizon shill ?
>
> You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews.
>
> http://www.i4u.com/article7607.html
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/t...f=todayspaper&o
ref=slogin
>
>
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technol...e_and_l
i
fe_without_a_keyboar
d.html
>
>
>
> A better ipod.
> A better "Blackberry" type phone
> A better internet device with True html =browser.', and WiFi
> A better UI.
> A phone without buttons that will make calls when you sit down and
> case presses those buttons.
>
> And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out,
> it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all
> running Apple's OS X.
>
>
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2007-01-10, 10:33 am |
| Yes, however if you have actually tried both Sprint and Cingular, you will
find that Sprint is much better especially with there excellent roaming
capability. The only thing that Sprint lacks in customer service.
< karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote in message
news:15r9q2da2plr8l2
eps1sb7gdsn1agdqmrd@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
> capability,
> secondly Sprint always comes in worse, whther its
> J.D. Power, the Yankee Group, or Consumer Reports.
>
> Pick a year 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003;
>
> the results are the same. Sprint is worst.
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2007-01-10, 10:33 am |
| You're welcome. Anytime :-)
< karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote in message
news:o3r9q2hknvk7nnv
0okhidiv9fg7mr9jumh@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 22:12:40 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks for the TROLL .
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
> Only if you include the Analog coverage.
Unlikely. Most Verizon handsets no longer include AMPS, yet Verizon
still beat Cingular in every metro area in the country, in many by huge
margins.
But yes, the analog coverage is a plus. I was roaming onto Cingular's
analog network two weeks ago, in an area with no digital coverage by any
carrier. Ironic to be using Cingular's network, with a Verizon phone, in
an area where 95%+ of Cingular's customers could not use Cingular's
network, and had no coverage.
| |
| Reginald Dwight 2007-01-10, 12:33 pm |
| In article <nl8ph.21069$GD4.10340@newsfe13.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> Yes, however if you have actually tried both Sprint and Cingular, you will
> find that Sprint is much better especially with there excellent roaming
> capability.
Based on what? The area YOU live in? Have you literally gone and sampled
coverage across the entire country?
| |
| BreadWithSpam@fractious.net 2007-01-10, 12:33 pm |
| Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
> In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
> gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.
As I posted elsewhere, GSM makes pretty good sense for this phone
and for Apple. But I won't do business with Cingular. Their
network coverage has been somewhat spotty for me, and their
customer service (and billing) has been a nightmare. T-Mobile's
coverage has been better where I need it to be, and they
have been a pleasure to work with.
I suspect that part of Apple's failure with the ROKR was
the tie-in to Cingular, too.
But it seems likely that a non-cell-phone version of this
device will have to be in the works, too.
--
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
| |
|
| In article <yobk5zubw5m.fsf@panix3.panix.com>,
BreadWithSpam@fracti
ous.net wrote:
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>
>
> As I posted elsewhere, GSM makes pretty good sense for this phone
> and for Apple. But I won't do business with Cingular. Their
> network coverage has been somewhat spotty for me, and their
> customer service (and billing) has been a nightmare. T-Mobile's
> coverage has been better where I need it to be, and they
> have been a pleasure to work with.
>
> I suspect that part of Apple's failure with the ROKR was
> the tie-in to Cingular, too.
>
And Motorola made and designed the phone, not Apple.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-10, 3:33 pm |
| At 09 Jan 2007 22:12:40 -0800 Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
America's
> Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather
than the
> technically superior CDMA.
They didn't choose GSM, per se, they chose to partner with a _carrier_
who happens to use GSM.
I expect AT&T (what Cingular will be called by the time anyone is able to
buy one) saw the iPhone as an excellent opportunity to reinvent their
image while launching America's Most Renamed Network.
Can you really believe that Verizon would sell a phone that the
manufacturer wouldn't let them cripple? I'm amazed Apple got any
American carrier to cater to them. I half expected Apple to launch their
own MVNO for the phone (a la Amp'd or Disney) just to avoid having to
work with a carrier over design and pricing issues.
Anybody think Apple's going to let AT&T silkscreen a blue globe on the
back? ;-)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Doc O'Leary 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article < eo2rko$gni$3@reader0
1.news.esat.net>,
Calum <com. gmail@scottishwildca
t.nospam> wrote:
> I still don't. Just give me the widescreen iPod without all that other
> crap :)
In due time, and possibly even when the phone actually ships. I can
easily imagine something with a similar form factor that is just a
little thicker for the 80GB drive (or 120GB or whatever the max is when
the next iPod upgrade comes out). The beauty of the $500 pricing, if
there can be beauty in that, is that Apple can not only compare it to a
$200 nano + $300 phone in one direction, but it can also ship a similar
looking 6G iPod at $350 and say "look at all you could get if you went
with an iPhone for just $150 more". That might not convince someone
with a huge media library they want to have with them at all times, but
it does help keep tiers to keep extracting "another $50" from people.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
| |
| (PeteCresswell) 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| Per Tim McNamara:
>But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
>gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.
Is Apple locked in to Cingular? Or are they free to offer the devices on the
open market?
--
PeteCresswell
| |
| Doc O'Leary 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 45a535d1$0$4883$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 09 Jan 2007 22:12:40 -0800 Mij Adyaw wrote:
> America's
> than the
>
> They didn't choose GSM, per se, they chose to partner with a _carrier_
> who happens to use GSM.
No, they looked at *the entire damn globe* and determined that quad band
GSM allowed the most coverage. Cingular has just recently made the push
to all GSM, and it may even bite them because they were pushing a lot of
current subscribers to upgrade their old phones by the end of 2006. If
Cingular had any brains they would extend their non-GSM service past the
end of March until the time the iPhone ships. Otherwise, if I'm going
to be locked into a contract for a phone I don't want, I might as well
just switch to T-Mobile.
> I expect AT&T (what Cingular will be called by the time anyone is able to
> buy one) saw the iPhone as an excellent opportunity to reinvent their
> image while launching America's Most Renamed Network.
Which is funny, because I was originally an AT&T customer. That's how
my phone is still branded! :-) And the only image I saw being
re-invented is how *terrible* most corporate executives are on stage; go
watch the Macworld keynote and see the Cingular guy suck all the energy
out of the room.
> Can you really believe that Verizon would sell a phone that the
> manufacturer wouldn't let them cripple? I'm amazed Apple got any
> American carrier to cater to them. I half expected Apple to launch their
> own MVNO for the phone (a la Amp'd or Disney) just to avoid having to
> work with a carrier over design and pricing issues.
Cingular was at least smart enough to see what partnering with Apple got
them. Most phones are commodities that everyone has and are often
"disposable". While it's all good fun to lock people in over common
phones, the real money is in an exclusive phone and a sweet, sweet
$90/month contract. Balk over the $500 iPhone price tag all you want,
but it's nothing compared to how much money is coming in on the plan
itself.
> Anybody think Apple's going to let AT&T silkscreen a blue globe on the
> back? ;-)
Yeah, branding is going to be a really interesting issue to play out. I
saw the screen displaying the Cingular name and, honestly, I'd rather
they tag the back of the phone than take up screen real estate. It's
not like people are going to be changing carriers so often that we need
to see it displayed on the top of the screen all the time.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
| |
| Roger Johnstone 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| In < 45a4fb1f$0$69039$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS wrote:
>
> The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost
> always the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one
> for $500 or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple
> will have a winner.
That is exactly the same comment many people, including reviewers, made
when the iPod first came out. "Very cool, too expensive." And the same
thing will probably happen this time around: it's so cool that people
will buy them at the high price, and Apple won't be able to keep up with
the initial demand. In a couple of years the 3rd generation iPhone with
32GB of flash, WiMax, and a second camera pointing the correct way for
video calling, will still cost U$600, but the iPhone Classic will be
available for half that.
A year later Microsoft will introduce the Zune Phone. No one will notice.
--
* Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
* PS/2 Mouse Adapter for vintage Apple II or Mac
* SCART RGB video cable for Apple IIGS
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 45a4fb1f$0$69039$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
> Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage
> is consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.
>
> Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide,
> so they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also,
> Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up
> that revenue stream to Apple.
T-Mobile uses GSM and has probably the best world coverage. Would have
been a much better choice than Cingular, and I'd have jumped on an
iPhone as soon as they became available if it came with T-Mobile service
(I have had Sprint since they started up and no actual complaints about
them).
> The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially
> given the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell
> a version of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot
> so users can insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want.
>
> The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost
> always the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one
> for $500 or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple
> will have a winner.
That's pretty much what what people said about the iPod. Too bad that
was such a market failure. You'd think Apple would learn from their
mistakes. :-)
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article <nl8ph.21069$GD4.10340@newsfe13.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote in message
> news:15r9q2da2plr8l2
eps1sb7gdsn1agdqmrd@
4ax.com...
>
> Yes, however if you have actually tried both Sprint and Cingular, you
> will find that Sprint is much better especially with there excellent
> roaming capability. The only thing that Sprint lacks in customer
> service.
I've had Sprint for quite a few years, basically since they got into the
business. I've had generally good technical service and good customer
service as well.
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| yes.
"Reginald Dwight" <regdwight@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:regdwight-C3A43A.08542310012007@news.verizon.net...
> In article <nl8ph.21069$GD4.10340@newsfe13.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>
>
> Based on what? The area YOU live in? Have you literally gone and sampled
> coverage across the entire country?
| |
| David C. 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| Quiet Desperation <x@x.com> writes:
>
> Frak me, but it's almost a Mac Mini in my pocket. I read somewhere
> it's motion sensitive like the Wii controller, and to zoom in on the
> web browser you just squeeze the side. I have not seen such a sweet
> gadget since... I dunno when.
Not quite. Go visit Apple's web site for the details, and some great
embedded-video demos.
There are three sensors in the iPhone:
- A motion sensor that can detect when you're holding it in portrait
or landscape mode, and adjust the display accordingly.
- An ambient light sensor, to dim the display in dark rooms.
- A proximity sensor, to know when the phone is up against your ear.
When it's against your ear, the display shuts off (to save battery)
and becomes non-responsive (so your face doesn't end up pushing
random buttons.)
No squeezing. To zoom images, you can double-tap, or you can use a
two-finger approach. Put two fingers on the image, then drag them
apart to make the image larger. Put two fingers on the image and drag
them together ("pinch") to make the image smaller.
> The only bummer is the camera. My place of employment does not allow
> camera phones. I really wish cameras were optional in all phones.
Even if you don't use it? That's annoying.
My employer doesn't allow you to take pictures on-site, but they don't
have a problem with merely posessing a camera. So my RAZR doesn't get
me in trouble.
-- David
| |
| David C. 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> writes:
>
> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM
> rather than the technically superior CDMA.
Technicalities are less important than business issues here.
Verizon would never resell a phone that doesn't have its UI mangled to
look just like all of Verizon's phones. And they'd force Apple to
cripple the BT and WiFi connectivity. By the time Verizon got done
mandating their changes, you wouldn't want the result.
The Time aricle (see the original post in this thread) quotes Jobs
saying this (in more diplomatic language.)
-- David
| |
|
| Tim McNamara wrote:
> T-Mobile uses GSM and has probably the best world coverage.
T-Mobile's problem is that there are two many areas in the U.S. where
their coverage is poor, by virtue of their late entry, and their 1900
MHz network. I.e., at my house, in a very urban part of Silicon Valley,
about one mile from Apple's campus, there is no T-Mobile coverage.
They've been fighting to put in a tower for about six years now
(Cingular started, and then when Cingular sold the 1900 MHz network to
T-Mobile, T-Mobile took over the fight...a friend of mine, whose house
backs up to where the tower would go, has been leading the successful
fight against the tower). I used to have no Cingular coverage, now I
have mediocre Cingular coverage, and no T-Mobile coverage. T-Mobile is
at least upfront about it, they check addresses and then if there is no
coverage they advise you against purchasing their service.
With Cingular GSM, you can get all the world coverage that T-Mobile
offers, though you may pay a bit more for international coverage on
other T-Mobile networks outside the U.S., than T-Mobile USA customers
pay (not sure of this actually).
> That's pretty much what what people said about the iPod. Too bad that
> was such a market failure. You'd think Apple would learn from their
> mistakes. :-)
I'd compare the iPhone more to the Newton. Cool technology, but enough
gotchas to limit its appeal. No 3G, only available on a poor network,
and less capability than PDA phones, though a much cooler design. But
not to worry, the first version of any product has always got some
design issues. In a couple of years there may be a CDMA version, and a
GSM version with 3G, as well as a way to load applications onto it.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| At 10 Jan 2007 06:41:31 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's
> coverage is consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region
> of the country.
Where Cingular was one of the incumbent 800MHz carriers, like in the NE,
SE and Midwest they hold their own quite well. I was never disappointed
with Cingular coverage in the 10 years I used them (on TDMA, with the old
ATTWS as a roaming partner) throughout t
e Midwest and Northeast.
> Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units
> worldwide, so they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck
> with Cingular.
I think the corporate mindset had a lot to do with it as well- I can't
see Verizon rolling over to Apple's design demands and requirements to
the extent Cingular (or Sprint) would be willing to (can you picture the
ads? "iPhone- with VCast!" ;-)
> Also, Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want
> to give up that revenue stream to Apple.
Agreed, but I think they'd have made an exception for the iPhone- I
suspect there were bigger points they were unwilling to conceed.
> The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially
> given the lack of 3G capability in the first model.
Agree. IMHO, Apple is very form (including ease-of-use) over substance-
iPods aren't the best spec'd MP3 players out there, but they've got the
style and ergonomics down better than everyone else. I suspect the same
will be true of the iPhone- browsing the web on a good capable browser,
even at EDGE speed, on a large, gorgeous screen, will be a more
satisfying experience than EVDO on, say, a a WinMo 5 device, even though
EVDO downloads that "Sorry, your browser doesn't support Java or Frames"
error message so much faster than EDGE can! ;-)
> They should sell a version of it with no phone service, but with an
> ExpressCard slot so users can insert a 3G card from whatever
> carrier they want.
That won't happen unless the Express Card could be made white, embossed
with a mirror-like shine and not extend from the device. Hell, they
won't put flash memory slots on an iPod Nano, you think they'll let
people stick ugly grey cards with flashing LEDs in unapproved colors that
hang out of their pretty phone? ;-)
> The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost
> always the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy
> one for $500 or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then
> Apple will have a winner.
I suspect the marketing will parallel the iPod- keep them expensive and
90% perfect for the first generation, to make it an object of desire.
Then improve them for 2nd gen; add the obvious missing features (like
3G), offer more colors, and reduce the depth and width 10% to ensure
you'll need new docking accessories and cases for the upgraded model! ;-)
Like the iPod, it'll be at hit right away even overpriced, then it will
be a HUGE hit at the price drop, when the knockoffs show up, and everyone
copies the full screen design with far clunkier UIs, then eventually
it'll be ubiquitous when Apple releases the stripped-down iPhone Nano,
with smaller screen, and the much less expensive, displayless
iPhone Shuffle, that can only dial people at random from your phone
book at the touch of a button... ;-)
Then, maybe 3 or 4 years from now, Motorola will have a hit with a
groundbreaking design: a phone with a physical, tactile keypad made of
little rubber buttons laid out in a 3x4 grid that they'll call the
KYPD...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| At 10 Jan 2007 15:07:11 +0000 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews...
>
Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing
to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but
not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first.
>
> A better ipod.
> A better "Blackberry" type phone
> A better internet device with True html =browser.', and WiFi
> A better UI.
> A phone without buttons that will make calls when you sit down and
> case presses those buttons.
All true, perhaps, but Toyota sells more Camrys than Rolls Royce sells
anything.
>
> And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out,
> it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all
> running Apple's OS X.
So how long will it take for MS to counter with their "Fune" running a
mobile version of Vista? ;-)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| At 10 Jan 2007 17:15:08 -0600 Tim McNamara wrote:
> T-Mobile uses GSM and has probably the best world coverage. Would have
> been a much better choice than Cingular, and I'd have jumped on an
> iPhone as soon as they became available if it came with T-Mobile service
Cingular has what, 50 million customers vs. T-Mo's 20? Cingular also has
a higher ARPU (roughly translating into a more affluent customer base
able to support selling a $500-600 phone) and has a presence in more
markets than T-Mo.
In addition, the timing is just right for Cingular- the press buzz will
make this a great flagship phone to coincide with the rebranding to AT&T-
I suspect we'll see a lot of "a new phone for the new AT&T"-type
advertising.
> (I have had Sprint since they started up and no actual complaints about
> them).
Personally, I'm surprised Sprint didn't nail this one down. They could
use a shot in the arm right now.
> That's pretty much what what people said about the iPod. Too bad that
> was such a market failure. You'd think Apple would learn from their
> mistakes. :-)
Very funny!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Tim Smith 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 45a587e5$0$4789$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 10 Jan 2007 17:15:08 -0600 Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>
> Cingular has what, 50 million customers vs. T-Mo's 20? Cingular also has
> a higher ARPU (roughly translating into a more affluent customer base
> able to support selling a $500-600 phone) and has a presence in more
> markets than T-Mo.
> In addition, the timing is just right for Cingular- the press buzz will
> make this a great flagship phone to coincide with the rebranding to AT&T-
> I suspect we'll see a lot of "a new phone for the new AT&T"-type
> advertising.
The fact that Apple already had worked with Cingular on a phone probably
was a factor, too--the Motorola ROKR. Apple was pleased with the
collaboration with Cingular on that. It was Motorola that screwed that
phone up, not Cingular.
--
--Tim Smith
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 45a587ca$0$4876$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> IMHO, Apple is very form (including ease-of-use) over substance-
> iPods aren't the best spec'd MP3 players out there, but they've got
> the style and ergonomics down better than everyone else.
Apple understands that people don't use specifications. People objects
and tools. The user experience is what satisfies the user. Most people
couldn't care less about the specs as long as the user experience is
good- it's just the geeks who look under the hood.
| |
|
| In article < 45a587cd$0$4876$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 10 Jan 2007 15:07:11 +0000 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing
> to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but
> not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first.
>
But the Razr is a crap phone. Tons of user complaints.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <m2tzyye6xx.fsf@qqqq.invalid>, shamino@techie.com (David C.)
wrote:
>
> My employer doesn't allow you to take pictures on-site, but they don't
> have a problem with merely posessing a camera. So my RAZR doesn't get
> me in trouble.
Problem when you work in a gym.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article < 20070111111308807+13
00@News.Individual.NET>,
Roger Johnstone <roger@roger.geek.nz.removethisbit> wrote:
> In < 45a4fb1f$0$69039$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS wrote:
>
> That is exactly the same comment many people, including reviewers, made
> when the iPod first came out. "Very cool, too expensive." And the same
> thing will probably happen this time around: it's so cool that people
> will buy them at the high price, and Apple won't be able to keep up with
> the initial demand. In a couple of years the 3rd generation iPhone with
> 32GB of flash, WiMax, and a second camera pointing the correct way for
> video calling, will still cost U$600, but the iPhone Classic will be
> available for half that.
>
> A year later Microsoft will introduce the Zune Phone. No one will notice.
Zune is already dying.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article < 45a587ca$0$4876$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> Apple understands that people don't use specifications. People objects
> and tools. The user experience is what satisfies the user. Most people
> couldn't care less about the specs as long as the user experience is
> good- it's just the geeks who look under the hood.
Speaking of looking under the hood... this is spec'd at 4Gb or 8Gb. Is
this flash memory or hard drive?
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
|
| In article <reply_in_group-F5C4DE.17500210012007@news.supernews.com>,
Tim Smith < reply_in_group@mouse
-potato.com> wrote:
> In article < 45a587e5$0$4789$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> The fact that Apple already had worked with Cingular on a phone probably
> was a factor, too--the Motorola ROKR. Apple was pleased with the
> collaboration with Cingular on that. It was Motorola that screwed that
> phone up, not Cingular.
It was downhill from the Startac for Motorola.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article < 12qb9h2ndjf23f7@corp
.supernews.com>,
Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>
> Speaking of looking under the hood... this is spec'd at 4Gb or 8Gb. Is
> this flash memory or hard drive?
Flash.
--
"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
| |
| Randall Ainsworth 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article <labolide-B99F2D.18461810012007@news.giganews.com>, Kurt
<labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> But the Razr is a crap phone. Tons of user complaints.
I like mine fine. It lets me place and receive calls. What more do you
want?
| |
| Randall Ainsworth 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article <labolide-EDA4F6.18481910012007@news.giganews.com>, Kurt
<labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> Zune is already dying.
It was dead before it started.
| |
| larwe 2007-01-10, 10:33 pm |
|
SMS wrote:
> I'd compare the iPhone more to the Newton. Cool technology, but enough
> gotchas to limit its appeal. No 3G, only available on a poor network,
What is the actual market penetration of 3G in general in the United
States (Apple's primary market)?
> and less capability than PDA phones, though a much cooler design. But
Depends what you're trying to do. I have a Blackberry and I use it
almost exclusively for email/SMS, one or two very short phone calls a
week, and a few minutes a week for web browsing, because the web
browser on any cellphone - and Blackberry's is among the best of a bad
bunch - is so annoying. With an iPhone - which I'd jump at if I hadn't
JUST bought an 8GB nano - the browsing time would increase a lot.
Don't forget that if you're in range of a Wifi AP, you jump off the GSM
network for your browsing. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple
integrated iChat voice into the Wifi side of it.
I also use the memo feature to make notes of movies I want to get,
passwords and so on.
Looks as if there was an iCal icon on the iPhone, and likely that will
sync with a .mac account. What more do you want out of a PDA?
> design issues. In a couple of years there may be a CDMA version, and a
> GSM version with 3G, as well as a way to load applications onto it.
It's practically certain there already is a way to load apps onto it
via iTunes, just not a way that's available to the end-user hacker.
Cingular - and Apple - want to make money selling downloads, just like
every other carrier.
| |
|
| In article < 45a587cd$0$4876$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 10 Jan 2007 15:07:11 +0000 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing
> to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but
> not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first.
Well, a 4 GB nano + a subsidized non-Apple smart phone would probably be
$400-500 anyway[1]. Plus, it's clear Apple is building a platform for
the future here. Remember, the first iPod was $400, and everyone said
that was too expensive. And it was, for the mass market, for a device
which most people didn't even realize they wanted at the time. But it
was enough to get things rolling, and prices dropped, and devices got
more compelling, and the iPod eventually became a mass market hit.
[1] Yes, the non-Apple phone would probably technically play music as
well, but most smart phones don't provide anything like the Apple user
experience. Most of the people I know who have smart phones have iPods
as well.
[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
<droleary.usenet-D86F29.16063910012007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article < 45a535d1$0$4883$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Yeah, branding is going to be a really interesting issue to play out. I
> saw the screen displaying the Cingular name and, honestly, I'd rather
> they tag the back of the phone than take up screen real estate. It's
> not like people are going to be changing carriers so often that we need
> to see it displayed on the top of the screen all the time.
That's not exactly Cingular branding, that's telling you who's network
you're on. Lots of phones do that. If you're roaming, or you manage to
get the phone unlocked and working with another carrier's SIM card,
it'll display something else.
--
"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
| |
| Steve Hix 2007-01-11, 4:33 am |
| In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on America's
> Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
> technically superior CDMA.
Because the world is abandoning CDMA.
| |
| Reginald Dwight 2007-01-11, 4:33 am |
| In article <wjfph.17930$kM1.10607@newsfe11.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> yes.
Which "yes".
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-11, 4:33 am |
| At 10 Jan 2007 16:50:09 -0800 SMS wrote:
> T-Mobile's problem is that there are two many areas in the U.S. where
> their coverage is poor, by virtue of their late entry, and their 1900
MHz
> network.
I'm not sure "late entry" is an excuse. T-Mo simply hasn't benefited as
greatly from mergers as other carriers. The individual wireless
companies that comprised, say, Cingular (PacBell, AT&T Wireless, SBMS and
BellSouth) were certainly no bigger than T-Mo is currently. Same goes
for Verizon's "ancestors." With the exception of Sprint and Nextel (who
themselves merged together, of course) all of the "national" cellular
companies are amalgams of smaller regional ones, due to the fact that the
FCC originally kept cellular regional in order to allow more players in a
very spectrum-limited game. Only after the five 1900MHz licenses per
market were established to augment the two original 800MHz licenses, were
cellular companies really allowed to merge to create the national
carriers we have today.
I'm certainly not arguing with your premise that T-Mo is limited in
coverage compared to other carriers- I'm only arguing with your reasons
why. ;-)
T-Mo really wasn't much later in the game than Sprint, who for a very
long time was the industry leader in native coverage (because the FCC
didn't limit the total territory of 1900MHz carriers like they did 800.)
Sadly, T-Mo's biggest problem is they're sort of a fifth wheel now- all
the companies who would have benefitted most from reciprocal roaming
agreements with them have merged into their largest competitor!
> With Cingular GSM, you can get all the world coverage that T-Mobile
> offers, though you may pay a bit more for international coverage on
other
> T-Mobile networks outside the U.S., than T-Mobile USA customers pay (not
> sure of this actually).
Probably six of one, half dozen of the other. Roaming rates are by
country rather than by carrier, so I suspect Cingular leverages T-Mo's
competition against them in foreign countries.
> I'd compare the iPhone more to the Newton. Cool technology, but enough
> gotchas to limit its appeal. No 3G, only available on a poor network,
and
> less capability than PDA phones, though a much cooler design.
I'm not sure all of that is accurate. 3G is probably coming (and
frankly, unless you're tethering a computer, I find EDGE perfectly
acceptable for PDA use), and despite your problem with Cingular, they
certainly have a decent network, even if it's not the absolute best. As
far as less capability than a PDA phone, it's certainly better spec'd with
a more robust OS, so I expect 3rd party developers will be on this thing
like flies on a horse.
> But not to worry, the first version of any product has always got some
> design issues. In a couple of years there may be a CDMA version, and a
> GSM version with 3G, as well as a way to load applications onto it.
Did I miss something in the keynote? Why is everyone assuming you won't
be able to load apps on this device? Heck, you can load apps on an iPod!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Per Rønne 2007-01-11, 4:33 am |
| Mij Adyaw <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on America's
> Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
> technically superior CDMA.
Had they done that it had been unusable outside the US.
They did, however, make an error when they choosed to support EDGE but
not 3G.
And what about FM and DAB radio support?
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
|
| Steve Hix wrote:
> In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>
>
> Because the world is abandoning CDMA.
CDMA's market share keeps increasing, not only in the U.S., but
especially outside the U.S.. The whole world is moving to CDMA, in one
form or another.
| |
|
| larwe wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>
> What is the actual market penetration of 3G in general in the United
> States (Apple's primary market)?
3G is available in all major metro areas, and most minor metro areas.
Cingular is way behind Sprint and Verizon in 3G deployment, but they are
rapidly deploying HSDPA, and in six months or so should have equal
coverage to the other two major carriers.
Sprint is now making a big deal about their 3G speed, versus Cingular's
EDGE speed, but this is an unfair comparison, as Cingular will have 3G
coverage as good as Sprint's by the end of the year, and already has 3G
coverage in the large metro areas.
| |
|
|
SMS wrote:
>
> 3G is available in all major metro areas, and most minor metro areas.
That's coverage; not what I was asking. I know the carriers want to
sell streaming pornography to every cellphone in the world, but who is
buying 3G service right now, and for what are they using it?
Besides streaming video, I haven't yet seen an application. All the
carriers either lock out or charge EXORBITANT rates for the one
application I'd find useful, which is using the phone as a cellular
modem with my laptop.
The data services I use (SMS and email) would not be significantly
improved by moving to 3G. Web browsing on a cellphone is so damn
annoying (inherently, due to keyboard, screen and rendering engine
issues) that adding high speed to it wouldn't appreciably improve the
situation.
| |
| BreadWithSpam@fractious.net 2007-01-11, 7:33 am |
| Tim Smith < reply_in_group@mouse
-potato.com> writes:
> The fact that Apple already had worked with Cingular on a phone probably
> was a factor, too--the Motorola ROKR. Apple was pleased with the
> collaboration with Cingular on that. It was Motorola that screwed that
> phone up, not Cingular.
That's not entirely obvious. That's what's usually blamed,
but my experience talking to folks - regardless of their
interest in the ROKR or not - shows that (a) folks don't
change cellular carriers often, even for a cool phone and
(b) almost uniform hatred of Cingular in particular as a
carrier. Moreover (c) unless someone's up for a contract
renewal - even if they don't have to change carriers to do
it - that's a big deterrent.
Tying a product to cellular carriers - and their contracts -
has a huge impact on potential market penetration. About the
only exception that's made it above that is probably the RAZR,
but note that that's available on *all* carriers, and unlocked
as well.
--
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
| |
|
|
SMS wrote:
>
> CDMA's market share keeps increasing, not only in the U.S., but
If by "CDMA" you mean specifically IS-95 and its derivatives, I don't
think you're correct.
If by "CDMA" you mean generically any system that uses CDMA to achieve
channel separation, then you're right because next-generation GSM uses
CDMA technology :)
IS-95 has a good (if quirky) frontend with a relatively poor backend.
GSM has a good (if complex) backend with a fairly limited TDMA
frontend, particularly unsuited to building out coverage over wide
areas.
| |
| Lefty Bigfoot 2007-01-11, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:50:44 -0600, Kurt wrote
(in article <labolide-8C6351.18504410012007@news.giganews.com> ):
> It was downhill from the Startac for Motorola.
Very good point. That was the last "Gee, I gotta have one of
those" cell phones, and that was a long time ago.
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
..........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
| |
| Lefty Bigfoot 2007-01-11, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:26:23 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote
(in article <timmcn-F2A262.08262311012007@news.iphouse.com> ):
> In article <0001HW. C1CBA20405E66514F020
3648@news.verizon.net>,
> Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
>
>
> I dunno. I see a *lot* of RAZR phones around here. Seems like about a
> third of the phones I see are RAZRs.
Yeah, but when the startac came out, all you had to do was walk
in a room with one, and a crowd would for around wanting to look
at it and play with it. RAZRs are popular and all, but not the
same buzz.
Guess what will happen the first time somebody walks in with an
iPhone?
:-)
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
..........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
| |
| Randy Howard 2007-01-11, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:46:18 -0600, Kurt wrote
(in article <labolide-B99F2D.18461810012007@news.giganews.com> ):
> In article < 45a587cd$0$4876$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> But the Razr is a crap phone. Tons of user complaints.
Well, I have one, and half of the supposed features I never even bother
to use. like voice-activated dialing. 2 minutes with the moto manual,
and you don't feel like fooling with it. It makes and receives calls,
and has decent battery life. I'll be moving to an iPhone when they're
available, can't wait.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
| |
| Tim McNamara 2007-01-11, 10:33 am |
| In article <0001HW. C1CBA20405E66514F020
3648@news.verizon.net>,
Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:50:44 -0600, Kurt wrote (in article
> <labolide-8C6351.18504410012007@news.giganews.com> ):
>
>
> Very good point. That was the last "Gee, I gotta have one of those"
> cell phones, and that was a long time ago.
I dunno. I see a *lot* of RAZR phones around here. Seems like about a
third of the phones I see are RAZRs.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-01-11, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:19:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>Unlikely. Most Verizon handsets no longer include AMPS, yet Verizon
>still beat Cingular in every metro area in the country, in many by huge
>margins.
And your URL for this fantasy claim......
| |
| John Heaney 2007-01-11, 10:33 am |
| In article <1168487658.395674.317850@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"larwe" <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks as if there was an iCal icon on the iPhone, and likely that will
> sync with a .mac account. What more do you want out of a PDA?
Ironically, despite Steve's disdain, a stylus. The last generation
Newton actually had excellent handwriting recognition. Apple invented
the PDA, but killed it just when it fulfilled its promise. I actually
used one for seven years before I finally couldn't deal with the battery
situation and the lack of syncing.
Anyway, a PDA needs good data entry (I could actually take notes on the
Newton) and I don't think an onscreen keyboard is it. Nevertheless, I
think the iPhone would be acceptable as a PDA with a good information
management system. Anyone familiar with MoreInfo on the Newton will know
what I mean.
--
John S. Heaney
I don't train in Aikido to protect myself from the world,
but to protect the world from me.
| |
| Reginald Dwight 2007-01-11, 10:33 am |
| In article <0001HW. C1CBA88405E7EAF2F020
3648@news.verizon.net>,
Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
> RAZRs are popular and all, but not the
> same buzz.
Exactly. RAZRs are popular because the stores push them and they are in
the magic price range. Nothing cool about 'em, really. Crap-XXX OS(s),
that's for sure!
| |
| John Heaney 2007-01-11, 10:33 am |
| In article < 45a587cd$0$4876$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 10 Jan 2007 15:07:11 +0000 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing
> to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but
> not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first.
The iPhone is more than a phone, though, and plenty of people will see
that and be willing to pony up half a grand for all the things is does.
Apple may have to drop the iPhone name because they are being sued by
Cisco, who hold the trademark. It may be good for Apple to come up with
a name that is more inclusive of its functionality. It's clearly not
_just_ a phone.
--
John S. Heaney
I don't train in Aikido to protect myself from the world,
but to protect the world from me.
| |
|
| John Heaney wrote:
> In article <1168487658.395674.317850@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "larwe" <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ironically, despite Steve's disdain, a stylus. The last generation
> Newton actually had excellent handwriting recognition. Apple invented
> the PDA, but killed it just when it fulfilled its promise. I actually
> used one for seven years before I finally couldn't deal with the battery
> situation and the lack of syncing.
Very good points. I've used the tablet PCs since the beginning, since I
worked on the concept unit that Microsoft built. The handwriting
recognition was awesome. A stylus, with the proper screen, could turn
the iPhone into more of a new Newton. Then the $500-600 price wouldn't
seem high. They could even do a phone-less version for those of us that
can't use Cingular.
| |
|
| larwe wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>
> That's coverage; not what I was asking. I know the carriers want to
> sell streaming pornography to every cellphone in the world, but who is
> buying 3G service right now, and for what are they using it?
They are selling it to people with wireless modems in their notebook and
tablet computers.
If you look at the iPhone as more of a web-pad, 3G is essential. No one
will be buying an iPhone just for the phone function. I think Cisco is
doing Apple a favor. They should rename it to something that emphasizes
its web browsing, video, and audio capabilities. They can expand the
market to people that can't or won't use Cingular.
| |
|
| In article <timmcn-F2A262.08262311012007@news.iphouse.com>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <0001HW. C1CBA20405E66514F020
3648@news.verizon.net>,
> Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
>
>
> I dunno. I see a *lot* of RAZR phones around here. Seems like about a
> third of the phones I see are RAZRs.
The RAZR looks cool, I guess, but it has crappy reception and badly
designed software.
I know a couple of people with RAZRs on T-Mobile who complain they only
get reception in my apartment right next to a window. A couple of them
has taken to leaving their phones sitting by the window when they come
over so they don't miss calls. This is, mind you, in the middle of
Manhattan, which probably has some of the best cellular coverage in the
country.
For comparison, I have a four year old Nokia 3650 on T-Mobile that gets
*good* reception anywhere in the apartment. It's really almost comical.
The phone will have three or four bars and make or receive calls in
places where RAZRs don't even see the network.
Hopefully Apple, while implementing all the slick features on the
iPhone, has also paid attention to the basics.
--
"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 <1168513700.645839.60120@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"larwe" <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>
> That's coverage; not what I was asking. I know the carriers want to
> sell streaming pornography to every cellphone in the world, but who is
> buying 3G service right now, and for what are they using it?
>
> Besides streaming video, I haven't yet seen an application. All the
> carriers either lock out or charge EXORBITANT rates for the one
> application I'd find useful, which is using the phone as a cellular
> modem with my laptop.
My hope is that Jobs has been beating Cingular executives with his
anodized aluminum clue stick, and convinced them that in a few years,
everyone will have an iPhone, and they'll make a lot more money selling
cheap high-speed data services to everyone instead of obscenely priced
high-speed data services to, well, almost nobody.
[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 <1hrrpfh. lnwt64x2ki1fN%per@RQ
NNE.invalid>,
per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
> Mij Adyaw <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>
>
> Had they done that it had been unusable outside the US.
>
> They did, however, make an error when they choosed to support EDGE but
> not 3G.
Jobs said during they keynote they'd have 3G models later. Cingular is
doing a pretty big 3G rollout this year, and of course they'll want 3G
when they launch in non-US markets.
> And what about FM and DAB radio support?
--
"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 < 100120071943213051%r
ag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article <labolide-B99F2D.18461810012007@news.giganews.com>, Kurt
> <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I like mine fine. It lets me place and receive calls. What more do you
> want?
According to many, it has often has problems even doing that.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Reginald Dwight 2007-01-11, 12:33 pm |
| In article <heaney-45AD83.10234511012007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>,
John Heaney <heaney@SolidObject.com> wrote:
> Apple may have to drop the iPhone name because they are being sued by
> Cisco, who hold the trademark.
That's almost ironed out.
> It may be good for Apple to come up with
> a name that is more inclusive of its functionality. It's clearly not
> _just_ a phone.
Yeah, but if the new iPods that ultimately come out have similar
features and a similar look it will help differentiate them.
| |
| Davoud 2007-01-11, 12:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock wrote, inter alia:
> IMHO, Apple is very form (including ease-of-use) over substance-
> iPods aren't the best spec'd MP3 players out there, but they've got the
> style and ergonomics down better than everyone else.
IMHO you have it wrong by 180 degrees. Substance? With a device such as
the iPod ergonomics *is* the substance. As far as specs are concerned,
I used to take money from people on bets over blindfold tests -- audio
gear*, wines**, and the like. I don't do that anymore, because it's
like stealing candy from a baby. /You/ couldn't consistently tell the
difference between an iPod and the best "spec'd" MP3 player that you
can name. Or possibly the worst.
Substance? Aperture, Final Cut Studio, Logic Pro, Shake... these are
applications with some /serious/ substance due to great specs, great
usability, and great style. Ditto Apple's consumer-level creative apps,
and the OS they run under.
In short, I would say that, broadly speaking, Apple gets it all:
performance, usability, style. Perfect? Of course not. But way ahead of
the pack. Evidence of that? When was the last time Dell issued a
product that made the front pages of practically every major newspaper
on the U.S.? Yesterday's product announcements were also reported in
the press in China, France, India, Japan, South Africa, the UK, and
numerous other countries.
Davoud
*In the case of audio gear, the vinyl-is-good, digital-is-abominable
crowd could always tell the difference, of course; they apparently
think that hiss, clicks, and pops are an essential element in the
finest musical performances. The tube vs. solid-state could not pass
the blindfold test, however, even when the tubes were in McIntosh gear
and the transistors were in Sears gear.
** In the mid-1970's French wine scandal, in which vin de table, or vin
ordinaire, was being sold as fine wine, the tasters for Château
Mouton-Rothschild testified under oath that, in truth, they could not
tell the difference between the most expensive and the cheapest wines
of the same variety in a blind test. The difference between $1200 per
bottle and $6.95 per bottle, it turns out, is likely to be nothing more
the name on the label!
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
| |
| larwe 2007-01-11, 12:33 pm |
|
SMS wrote:
> If you look at the iPhone as more of a web-pad, 3G is essential. No one
It's too small to be one's primary web access device. This is an
inherent limitation of handheld appliances. Can you imagine trying to
read a 300 page datasheet on a 3.5" LCD? Can you imagine trying to use
Writely (or whatever Google renamed it) on this thing?
Mobile Internet is quick emails, checking bank balances, looking at
pictures, that sort of thing. It's games and video content to amuse you
while you're waiting for an appointment, or maybe while sitting on the
toilet :)
It's very nice that Apple includes a full web browser - I certainly do
want one - but this thing is not going to replace my laptop, it's only
going to replace my Blackberry.
| |
| Tom Reestman 2007-01-11, 12:33 pm |
| (BreadWithSpam@fract
ious.net) got drunk after typing this drivel in
news:yobhcuxhitr.fsf@panix3.panix.com...
> Tim Smith < reply_in_group@mouse
-potato.com> writes:
>
>
> That's not entirely obvious. That's what's usually blamed,
> but my experience talking to folks - regardless of their
> interest in the ROKR or not - shows that (a) folks don't
> change cellular carriers often, even for a cool phone and
> (b) almost uniform hatred of Cingular in particular as a
> carrier. Moreover (c) unless someone's up for a contract
> renewal - even if they don't have to change carriers to do
> it - that's a big deterrent.
>
(a) I really have no idea on this. I wonder if there is any data on it?
(b) I keep hearing this now, yet they have more subscribers in the U.S.
than anyone else. Surely _someone_ must be happy with them! I can't help
but wonder if the iPhone were a Verizon-only device if we'd be hearing
how Verizon sucks, why didn't they go with Cingular, etc.
(c) In general I believe this is ture.
> Tying a product to cellular carriers - and their contracts -
> has a huge impact on potential market penetration. About the
> only exception that's made it above that is probably the RAZR,
> but note that that's available on *all* carriers, and unlocked
> as well.
>
The RAZR was not initially avaialable on all carriers. It was exclusinve,
though I cannot remember to who. It's also interesting to note that the
RAZR's price in the beginning was deemed way to high by "analysts", yet
it sold like hotcakes.
--
Tom Reestman
| |
| Davoud 2007-01-11, 3:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock wrote, inter alia:
> ...All true, perhaps, but Toyota sells more Camrys than Rolls Royce sells
> anything.
All other things remaining equal, Camrys would likely outsell Rolls
Royces if the two were comparably priced. By the measures most people
apply to cars -- reliability, ease and low cost of repairs, and other
tangibles -- the Camry is the better car.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-11, 3:33 pm |
| At 11 Jan 2007 07:44:53 -0800 SMS wrote:
> If you look at the iPhone as more of a web-pad, 3G is essential.
Perhaps, but again, I doubt many will use a device with a half-VGA screen
and finger-tapping input as a webpad. I stand by my opinion that EDGE is
acceptable (but certainly not preferable) for occasional phone/PDA
browsing UNLESS you intend to tether a laptop. (Of course, this opinion
is coming from someone who started in mobile data six years ago by
tethering a Casio Pocket PC to a TDMA Nokia via IR at 9.6kbps to get e-
mail, so I obviously have low expectations!)
Going without 3G at first simplifies things greatly, as they can sell the
same model worldwide. (IIRC, GSM 3G isn't a world standard- different
frequencies are used here than in Europe. EDGE, however, is EDGE
wherever you go.)
> No one will be buying an iPhone just for the phone function.
No, but many will buy it simply to have a "real" iPod integrated into
their phone and never use the web/e-mail stuff! I've got a good friend
(and a fairly tech savvy guy) who bought an unlocked Treo 600 in Europe
before his carrier offered it here just to integrate phone and PIM in one
device. He doesn't do data on it- not even e-mail, but he carries it,
and his iPod, everywhere. He'll be all over this thing to get everything
he wants in one device.
> I think Cisco is doing Apple a favor. They should rename it to
>something that emphasizes its web browsing, video, and audio capabilities.
Naah, their target market (IMHO) is the person who is afraid of those
devices because they're too complicated, the same way iPods are touted
for making portable music simple.
I suspect they'll secure the rights to the iPhone name, but if not,
they'll probably go with "Apple Phone" (since they're going with "Apple
TV" for their PMP/media server thingy.)
> They can expand the market to people that can't or won't use Cingular.
Maybe in '08 or '09 but Cingular has a multi-year exclusivity on this
thing.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| In article < 45a679c1$0$4839$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 11 Jan 2007 07:44:53 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps, but again, I doubt many will use a device with a half-VGA screen
> and finger-tapping input as a webpad. I stand by my opinion that EDGE is
> acceptable (but certainly not preferable) for occasional phone/PDA
> browsing UNLESS you intend to tether a laptop. (Of course, this opinion
> is coming from someone who started in mobile data six years ago by
> tethering a Casio Pocket PC to a TDMA Nokia via IR at 9.6kbps to get e-
> mail, so I obviously have low expectations!)
>
> Going without 3G at first simplifies things greatly, as they can sell the
> same model worldwide. (IIRC, GSM 3G isn't a world standard- different
> frequencies are used here than in Europe. EDGE, however, is EDGE
> wherever you go.)
>
>
> No, but many will buy it simply to have a "real" iPod integrated into
> their phone and never use the web/e-mail stuff!
Keep in mind the Web/e-mail stuff works on Wi-Fi as well.
[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
| |
| Madwen 2007-01-11, 3:33 pm |
| In article <heaney-2D3CD2.10175111012007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>,
John Heaney <heaney@SolidObject.com> wrote:
> In article <1168487658.395674.317850@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "larwe" <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ironically, despite Steve's disdain, a stylus. The last generation
> Newton actually had excellent handwriting recognition. Apple invented
> the PDA, but killed it just when it fulfilled its promise. I actually
> used one for seven years before I finally couldn't deal with the battery
> situation and the lack of syncing.
>
> Anyway, a PDA needs good data entry (I could actually take notes on the
> Newton) and I don't think an onscreen keyboard is it. Nevertheless, I
> think the iPhone would be acceptable as a PDA with a good information
> management system. Anyone familiar with MoreInfo on the Newton will know
> what I mean.
I have a touch screen on my Bernina (a sewing computer) and I just use
the tip of the back of my nail to navigate--- much faster than a stylus,
especially when you can adjust the sensitivity of the screen.
| |
|
| Tom Reestman wrote:
> (b) I keep hearing this now, yet they have more subscribers in the U.S.
> than anyone else. Surely _someone_ must be happy with them! I can't help
> but wonder if the iPhone were a Verizon-only device if we'd | | |