|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > July 2007 > Re: Time Magazine: The iPhone Dials Up the Competition
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Time Magazine: The iPhone Dials Up the Competition
|
|
|
| On Jun 25, 8:26 pm, Screw the iPhone <a...@sucks.XXX> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:12:52 -0700, Michelle Steiner
>
>
>
> <miche...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You wish. I just think it's funny as HELL to see everyone wetting
> their pants over a piece of shit PHONE that NO ONE has yet put their
> hands on. Do you think you could hold the grandstanding to a minimum
> until you actually have real life experience with the thing, or is
> your life *THAT* empty???
The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest beef
I have with it is a lack
of an SDK for 3rd party companies, freeware developers, etc. to write
software on it that runs
on the "bare metal" of the phone. This hardware has a hell of a lot of
potential, but if Apple decides
"no SDK", then it's little more than a pretty device, and at the price
it's being sold at, I expect more
than a souped up V-cast style "teenybopper" phone. Personaly, I
wouldn't buy it until an SDK is
released for it.
Also, it appears "Meg" is Astroturfing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
which is bound to piss
people off.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-06-26, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:25:51 -0700, zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
>On Jun 25, 8:26 pm, Screw the iPhone <a...@sucks.XXX> wrote:
>
>
> The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest beef
>I have with it is a lack
>of an SDK for 3rd party companies, freeware developers, etc. to write
>software on it that runs
>on the "bare metal" of the phone. This hardware has a hell of a lot of
>potential, but if Apple decides
>"no SDK", then it's little more than a pretty device, and at the price
>it's being sold at, I expect more
>than a souped up V-cast style "teenybopper" phone. Personaly, I
>wouldn't buy it until an SDK is
>released for it.
>
FINALLY!!! Someone with some common sense in this group! At least
you haven't drunk the Kool-aid without finding out what's in it yet.
> Also, it appears "Meg" is Astroturfing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
>which is bound to piss
>people off.
Ya' think??? ;-)
| |
|
| In article <5ebjlmF387qclU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
>
> Me neither, but I realise I'm nothing like who its aimed at.
>
> Bet it will do as well as the ipod did, just because
> it integrates a decent phone with a media player.
>
> Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to be
> seen how much effect being very late to market will have.
I wouldn't consider Apple to be "very late" to this market. True, some
other devices that combine these capabilities have existed for some
years. But the market for them has never really taken off and gone
mainstream.
Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar state.
[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
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-26, 3:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I wouldn't consider Apple to be "very late" to this market.
More fool you. High end phones with all sorts of extra capability
have been around for a hell of a long time now, years, literally.
> True, some other devices that combine these capabilities have existed for some
> years. But the market for them has never really taken off and gone mainstream.
Yes, and it wont now, you watch.
Most want a much cheaper phone that combines
phone, media player, camera etc capability.
And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly
want a real keyboard, not a touchscreen one too.
> Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar state.
Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media
player and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that regard.
And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at the time that
the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already has a cellphone now and
most of those already have a media player now too if they use one much.
Hordes of them have a media player/phone/camera combined already.
| |
| SoCalCommie 2007-06-26, 3:33 pm |
| Yes. I'm happy with my Sammy 'Sync' 3.5G (tethered 350 kbps up &
down), 2 Gig MP3 / WMA player w Bluetooth stereo headset, $125 on
eBay. Who NEEDS an iPhone? Not me.
SoCalCommie
"The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot
is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud
of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a
feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance
that leads to war." - Sidney J. Harris
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ed5rkF35huihU1
@mid.individual.net...
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
>
beef[color=darkred]
freeware[color=darkr
ed]
metal"[color=darkred]
but[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
wouldn't[color=darkr
ed]
>
>
>
>
>
> More fool you. High end phones with all sorts of extra capability
> have been around for a hell of a long time now, years, literally.
>
existed for some[color=darkred]
mainstream.[color=darkred]
>
> Yes, and it wont now, you watch.
>
> Most want a much cheaper phone that combines
> phone, media player, camera etc capability.
>
> And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly
> want a real keyboard, not a touchscreen one too.
>
state.[color=darkred]
>
> Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media
> player and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that
regard.
> And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at the time
that
> the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already has a cellphone now
and
> most of those already have a media player now too if they use one
much.
> Hordes of them have a media player/phone/camera combined already.
>
>
| |
|
| In article <5ed5rkF35huihU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
> More fool you. High end phones with all sorts of extra capability
> have been around for a hell of a long time now, years, literally.
>
>
> Yes, and it wont now, you watch.
>
> Most want a much cheaper phone that combines phone, media player,
> camera etc capability.
It might take a couple of years and a couple of price cuts. It did for
the iPod. But it will happen. The iPhone probably won't end up quite as
dominant as the iPod, because its attachment to a single network (at
least in the US) will cause some people to look elsewhere, but it's
going to be a major factor.
> And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly want a real
> keyboard, not a touchscreen one too.
Doubt it. Remember, this is a smart phone primarily for the iPod
demographic, not for business types who mostly use the device for
e-mail.
And it's not clear to me that the on-screen keyboard doesn't work just
as well as a physical keyboard. If you mash a couple of adjacent keys on
a physical keyboard, it has no idea which one you were trying to hit. If
you do the same on touch-screen keyboard, it can probably figure out
where the center of your finger was and recover. Plus there's the auto
correction feature.
Plus, with an on-screen input device, you can customize things for every
app. For instance, the on-screen keyboard that comes up when you type in
the URL field of Safari actually has a single key you get hit to insert
".com".
>
> Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media
> player and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that
> regard.
And the iPhone has just about the best designed UI I've ever seen on an
actual product that's actually available to the public. Even most
unlikely concept product UI demos one sees don't look as good.
> And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at
> the time that the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already has a
> cellphone now and most of those already have a media player now too
> if they use one much. Hordes of them have a media player/phone/camera
> combined already.
However, most of those people don't use the media player functions of
their phones, because they use iPods instead. The market has shown that
it greatly values iPods over other media players. I would expect it
would greatly value an iPod phone over other media player phones, for
all the same reasons.
Plus, people replace their phone and media player every couple of years
anyway. And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared with the cost
of an iPod + a phone. (If you restrict your choice of phone to one of
the few others with a decent web browser, anyway.)
--
"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
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-26, 3:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> It might take a couple of years and a couple of
> price cuts. It did for the iPod. But it will happen.
I doubt it with market penetration, essentially because a phone
is much more locked to the telco than a media player ever is
and most care about what their phone plan is costing them, it aint
just the sticker price on the hardware that matters with phones.
> The iPhone probably won't end up quite as dominant as the iPod,
Nothing like it in fact, if only because so many want a dirt cheap phone instead.
The phone market is VERY different to the media player market.
> because its attachment to a single network (at least
> in the US) will cause some people to look elsewhere,
And because even if the network is acceptible, the calls plan may not be.
> but it's going to be a major factor.
I doubt it, if only because its so late to market. Everyone who wants a high end
phone already has one and its unlikely to be their first high end phone either.
[color=darkred]
> Doubt it.
Have a look at the high end phones.
> Remember, this is a smart phone primarily for the iPod demographic,
If thats so, they're XXXXed because so many already
have a phone and media player and camera combined.
Very late to market with theirs again.
> not for business types who mostly use the device for e-mail.
Sure, its not going to appeal to too many of those, just because it has no keyboard.
> And it's not clear to me that the on-screen keyboard doesn't work
> just as well as a physical keyboard. If you mash a couple of adjacent
> keys on a physical keyboard, it has no idea which one you were
> trying to hit. If you do the same on touch-screen keyboard, it can
> probably figure out where the center of your finger was and recover.
That doesnt really happen enough to matter much.
The problem is more that the screen is filled with the
touchscreen keyboard on those tiny screens and so you
cant read the email you are replying too at the same time.
Doesnt matter with a GPS where you are only entering a street
and town name and you get to select from a list once you have
typed a couple of letters, but email cant be done like that.
> Plus there's the auto correction feature.
Sure.
> Plus, with an on-screen input device, you can customize things
> for every app. For instance, the on-screen keyboard that comes
> up when you type in the URL field of Safari actually has a single
> key you get hit to insert ".com".
Sure, it would be fine for browsing, just not for emails.
And anyone with a clue uses favourites with browsing anyway and
a touchscreen does those even better than a physical keyboard.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> And the iPhone has just about the best designed UI I've ever
> seen on an actual product that's actually available to the public.
Sure, but it remains to be seen what they have done about back in the computer.
If its anything like the iPod there, its pretty primitive back in the computer.
> Even most unlikely concept product UI demos one sees don't look as good.
My main reservation is with the the two finger approach,
cant see that being too viable in a phone where you mostly
hold it in one hand and use the other on the screen.
Maybe you wont do the two finger stuff enough to matter tho.
[color=darkred]
> However, most of those people don't use the media player
> functions of their phones, because they use iPods instead.
That is just plain wrong when their phone has a media player.
> The market has shown that it greatly values iPods over other media players.
Yes, but its different when the phone is also a media player as most are now.
> I would expect it would greatly value an iPod phone over
> other media player phones, for all the same reasons.
Maybe, but the problem Apple has is that they already have those media player
phones because Apple is so late to market with theirs and its locked to AT&T too.
> Plus, people replace their phone and media player every couple of years anyway.
Sure, thats certainly one thing in Apple's favour, but you dont see
too many change platform completely. Thats what XXXXed the Mac.
> And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared
> with the cost of an iPod + a phone.
Thats not a valid comparison, you should be comparing it with other media player phones.
> (If you restrict your choice of phone to one of the
> few others with a decent web browser, anyway.)
There's plenty with that capability now, with media player and camera and often GPS as well.
| |
|
| In article <5eda2bF38m05fU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
>
> I doubt it with market penetration, essentially because a phone
> is much more locked to the telco than a media player ever is
> and most care about what their phone plan is costing them, it aint
> just the sticker price on the hardware that matters with phones.
The major carriers in the US are all fairly competitive on price. AT&T
isn't at a particular disadvantage there.
[snip]
>
>
> Have a look at the high end phones.
Um. Well, yes, if you assume that people want what existing phones
offer, and not what the iPhone offers, then of course the iPhone won't
amount to much. But since the issue we're discussing is, basically,
whether people want the iPhone, assuming at the start that they don't
isn't a valid thing to do.
[snip]
> Doesnt matter with a GPS where you are only entering a street
> and town name and you get to select from a list once you have
> typed a couple of letters, but email cant be done like that.
OK, but unlike for the Blackberry, e-mail is not the "killer app" for
the iPhone. The media player function is, and to a lesser extent
probably the mapping and web browsing functions. Not to mention just the
slick all-around UI, for everything from SMS to contact management to
conference calling. All of these benefit from the fact that almost the
entire face of the device is covered with a screen, instead of half of
if being taken up by a physical keyboard.
[snip]
>
> My main reservation is with the the two finger approach,
> cant see that being too viable in a phone where you mostly
> hold it in one hand and use the other on the screen.
>
> Maybe you wont do the two finger stuff enough to matter tho.
The two-finger stuff is mostly used for resizing images and such, using
a pinching motion with the thumb and index finger of the same had. So,
it's fine one-handed.
>
>
> That is just plain wrong when their phone has a media player.
Not in my experience, it's not. Many phones sold these days have a music
player function. Most users don't even know their phone has it. And even
if they did, they wouldn't want to use a media player that didn't sync
with iTunes automatically, since that's where they probably have their
music.
[snip]
>
> Sure, thats certainly one thing in Apple's favour, but you dont see
> too many change platform completely. Thats what XXXXed the Mac.
Most people don't really think of mobile phones as "platforms", though.
Switching from a Motorola phone (or whatever) to an iPhone isn't nearly
like switching from Windows to the Mac. The vast majority of users have
no third-party applications at all and no data beyond contact
information and photos, all of which can be ported over (well, if their
current phone can sync it to a computer at all).
>
> Thats not a valid comparison, you should be comparing it with other media
> player phones.
The market has clearly expressed that "media player" does not equal
"iPod".
I suppose we could compare it to all the other iPod phones. After Apple
makes more models. <g>
[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
| |
| Michelle Steiner 2007-06-26, 10:33 pm |
| In article <stdgi.15991$2v1.4733@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
"SoCalCommie" <nospam@nowhere.non> wrote:
> "The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the
> patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist
> is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude
> creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of
> blind arrogance that leads to war." - Sidney J. Harris
And the nationalist proclaims himself to be a "True Patriot", and
everyone who disagrees with him to be a traitor.
"My country, right or wrong: if right, to be kept right; and if wrong,
to be set right."_
Senator Carl Schurz of Missouri, 1899
As true today as it was then.
--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-26, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> The major carriers in the US are all fairly competitive on price.
Not necessarily on what they offer with a particular phone tho.
> AT&T isn't at a particular disadvantage there.
Some dont get effective coverage from them tho.
You dont get that effect with media players.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Um. Well, yes, if you assume that people want what
> existing phones offer, and not what the iPhone offers,
Wasnt doing that, just looking at what the manufacturers of those
phones have researched what the buyers want feature wise.
> then of course the iPhone won't amount to much. But since the issue
> we're discussing is, basically, whether people want the iPhone,
That wasnt what was being discussed in this sub thread.
> assuming at the start that they don't isn't a valid thing to do.
Pity I never did that.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> OK, but unlike for the Blackberry, e-mail is not the "killer app" for the iPhone.
There is no "killer app" for the iPhone, there are hordes of phones
with media players and cameras that have been around for years now.
> The media player function is,
Nope, because that wont kill a damned thing given that there are hordes of
phones with media players and cameras that have been around for years now.
> and to a lesser extent probably the mapping and web browsing functions.
More everything in the one device, mapping, browsing, email, camera, media player etc.
And thats where the iphone may well fail, when you cant run Quicken etc on it etc.
> Not to mention just the slick all-around UI, for everything
> from SMS to contact management to conference calling.
Sure, but the UI on most phones is already quite adequate in those areas.
> All of these benefit from the fact that almost the entire
> face of the device is covered with a screen, instead of
> half of if being taken up by a physical keyboard.
There's plenty of other phones like that now.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> The two-finger stuff is mostly used for resizing images
> and such, using a pinching motion with the thumb and
> index finger of the same had. So, it's fine one-handed.
Maybe.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Not in my experience, it's not. Many phones sold these days have a
> music player function. Most users don't even know their phone has it.
Oh bullshit.
> And even if they did, they wouldn't want to use a media
> player that didn't sync with iTunes automatically, since
> that's where they probably have their music.
Pity about the convenience of both in the one device.
You're completely off with the fairys on this one.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Most people don't really think of mobile phones as "platforms", though.
You just said they do with your iTunes comment above.
> Switching from a Motorola phone (or whatever) to an
> iPhone isn't nearly like switching from Windows to the Mac.
In some ways its worse because the UI is so different
between a Motorola and a Nokia for example.
> The vast majority of users have no third-party applications at all
Correct. But plenty do on their high end phones,
particularly stuff like TomTom 6 and Quicken etc.
> and no data beyond contact information and photos, all of which can be
> ported over (well, if their current phone can sync it to a computer at all).
It remains to be seen how bullet proof that is with the iphone.
Bet it turns out to be the area with by far the most problems.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> The market has clearly expressed that "media player" does not equal "iPod".
Not with combined media players and phones it hasnt.
> I suppose we could compare it to all the other iPod phones.
Nope.
> After Apple makes more models. <g>
Even later to market. Bet its too late and they never do as well as the ipod did.
| |
|
| In article <5edfa0F2pb4ltU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
[color=darkred]
>
>
> Wasnt doing that, just looking at what the manufacturers of those
> phones have researched what the buyers want feature wise.
IOW, you're assuming current phones get it right and the iPhone gets it
wrong.
[snip]
>
> There is no "killer app" for the iPhone, there are hordes of phones
> with media players and cameras that have been around for years now.
OK, this shows that you've seriously missed the point.
[snip]
>
> Oh bullshit.
Just posted elsewhere:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/techn...4jun24
,1
,751030.story?page=2&coll=chi-technologylocal-hed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola and other phonemakers have been stuffing their wares with
Web-browsing and music- and video-playing capabilities. But U.S.
consumers still don't seem to choose their phones based on such features.
"I don't think many people go out and buy a phone and say, 'I'm going
for the music part of it, I'm going for the video part of it,'" said
Neil Strother, a wireless industry analyst at Jupiter Research. But if
the iPhone succeeds, such multimedia phones should really take root,
spurring more innovation, too, at established phonemakers, he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Pity about the convenience of both in the one device.
Yes, which is exactly what will sell iPhones. If you want an iPod as
opposed to a "music player" (and most people do), and you want phone
features in the same device, the iPhone is your only option.
>
>
> You just said they do with your iTunes comment above.
I was discussing how many people had iPods in addition to "music player"
phones because they wanted iPods as opposed to generic "music player"
functionality. This implies that people use the platform concept with
respect to music players, which I think is clearly the case. It doesn't
imply they do with respect to phones.
With the except of the small fraction of people who buy Treo and Windows
Mobile devices, the platform concept is nearly meaningless in the mobile
phone market.
>
> In some ways its worse because the UI is so different
> between a Motorola and a Nokia for example.
People are almost certainly going to have an easier time using an iPhone
than their current phone. The iPhone is designed so much better than
other phones that it will offset any lack of familiarity. Most people
barely know how to use their phones to begin with.
>
> Correct. But plenty do on their high end phones,
> particularly stuff like TomTom 6 and Quicken etc.
"Plenty" being probably 1% of the overall market.
Again, this isn't necessarily a phone designed for people who already
buy high-priced smart phones. It's a phone designed for people who buy
*iPods*.
>
> It remains to be seen how bullet proof that is with the iphone.
>
> Bet it turns out to be the area with by far the most problems.
Why? Apple has lots of experience with this. The iPhone uses an updated
version of the iPod syncing mechanism, and iSync on OS X has been
syncing with non-Apple phones for years.
[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
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-26, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> IOW, you're assuming current phones get it right and the iPhone gets it wrong.
Nope. Just that its a tad unlikely that those manufacturers who included
a full physical keyboard didnt do that for a reason and that Apple may
well have decided that the iPhone wont be used for email much and so it
doesnt matter if its got a much more limited touch screen keyboard instead.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> OK, this shows that you've seriously missed the point.
Nope, you have.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Just posted elsewhere:
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/techn...4jun24
,1
> ,751030.story?page=2&coll=chi-technologylocal-hed
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Motorola and other phonemakers have been stuffing their wares with
> Web-browsing and music- and video-playing capabilities. But U.S.
> consumers still don't seem to choose their phones based on such features.
Separate matter entirely to your claim above.
> "I don't think many people go out and buy a phone and say, 'I'm going
> for the music part of it, I'm going for the video part of it,'" said
> Neil Strother, a wireless industry analyst at Jupiter Research.
Nothing like your silly claim above.
> But if the iPhone succeeds, such multimedia phones should really take
> root, spurring more innovation, too, at established phonemakers, he said.
That might well happen with the touch screen UI, but its already
happened YEARS ago now with media players and cameras etc,
LONG before the iPhone ever showed up.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Yes, which is exactly what will sell iPhones.
Nope, there are XXXX all silly enough to have
both a phone thats a media player and an ipod.
> If you want an iPod as opposed to a "music player" (and most people do),
No they dont. In spades with those who have a media player in their phone.
> and you want phone features in the same device, the iPhone is your only option.
No it isnt.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I was discussing how many people had iPods in addition
> to "music player" phones because they wanted iPods as
> opposed to generic "music player" functionality.
That wasnt your iTunes comment.
> This implies that people use the platform concept with respect to music players,
> which I think is clearly the case. It doesn't imply they do with respect to phones.
They do anyway, just because of the radical differences in how the menus are structured etc.
There's plenty that choose to stick with Nokia's just because their menus
etc are much more intuitive than say with Motorola and LG in spades.
> With the except of the small fraction of people who buy
> Treo and Windows Mobile devices, the platform concept
> is nearly meaningless in the mobile phone market.
Not with the UI it aint.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> People are almost certainly going to have an easier
> time using an iPhone than their current phone.
We'll see with Nokias particularly.
> The iPhone is designed so much better than other
> phones that it will offset any lack of familiarity.
Easy to claim. It remains to be seen how valid that claim actually is.
> Most people barely know how to use their phones to begin with.
Most can use it for what they bought it for.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> "Plenty" being probably 1% of the overall market.
Thats why I said 'correct'
> Again, this isn't necessarily a phone designed for
> people who already buy high-priced smart phones.
> It's a phone designed for people who buy *iPods*.
Pity so many buy phones with media players and cameras too.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Why?
Because thats always a major problem when changing phones
except with the real dinosaurs that have everything in the sim.
> Apple has lots of experience with this.
> The iPhone uses an updated version of the iPod syncing mechanism,
> and iSync on OS X has been syncing with non-Apple phones for years.
And is still the area where most have the most problems.
| |
|
| In article <5edl92F37lpagU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
[snip]
You're responding to individual sentences rather than to my actual
points, and trying to start arguments about who said what to distract
from the actual discussion.
We get enough of that sort of thing from our resident CSMA trolls. I
don't really have the patience for it.
>
> They do anyway, just because of the radical differences in how the
> menus are structured etc.
>
> There's plenty that choose to stick with Nokia's just because their
> menus etc are much more intuitive than say with Motorola and LG in
> spades.
>
>
> Not with the UI it aint.
I haven't gotten the impression most people are particularly attached
to their user interfaces. In fact, most people seem to hate the UI of
current phones.
[snip]
>
>
> And is still the area where most have the most problems.
OK, but the problems you're talking about here are problems with *any*
phone switch. They have nothing to do with the iPhone in particular.
Most people, as far as I've seen, just end up manually re-entering their
contact information anyway.
--
"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
| |
| Wes Groleau 2007-06-26, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU quoted:
> Motorola and other phonemakers have been stuffing their wares with
> Web-browsing and music- and video-playing capabilities. But U.S.
> consumers still don't seem to choose their phones based on such features.
Of course not. Video (or web) on a postage stamp ?!?
Audio that kills the battery so you can't use the PHONE ?!?
--
Wes Groleau
Don't get even -- get odd!
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-26, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
> You're responding to individual sentences rather than to my actual points,
Nope.
> and trying to start arguments about who said what to distract from the actual discussion.
Nope.
> We get enough of that sort of thing from our resident CSMA trolls.
Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
> I don't really have the patience for it.
Your problem.
What you really dont have the patience for is having your nose rubbed in your stupiditys.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I haven't gotten the impression most people are
> particularly attached to their user interfaces.
You need to get out more.
> In fact, most people seem to hate the UI of current phones.
Most dont with Nokias.
And you dont know that they will lover the iPhone UI either, particularly
the rather XXXXed scrolling around when you're using decent legible fonts.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> OK, but the problems you're talking about
> here are problems with *any* phone switch.
Nope, not when you stick with the same manufacturer.
> They have nothing to do with the iPhone in particular.
Corse they do when its their first.
> Most people, as far as I've seen, just end up manually
> re-entering their contact information anyway.
Only the fools.
| |
|
| In article <5edrb4F35blltU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
>
>
> Nope.
>
>
> Nope.
OK, so we're done here.
[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
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-26, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> OK, so we're done here.
You've always been done, like a dinner.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-06-29, 4:33 am |
| At 29 Jun 2007 09:39:27 +1000 Rod Speed wrote:
> They're wrong, the EDGE system doesnt use sims.
EDGE is enhanced GPRS, which is GSM, which uses SIMs.
The "no SIM" misconception stems from the lack of obvious opening in the
case in the preproduction demos to insert/remove one.
I assume it's simply preinstalled and/or inserts/removes via a less-than-
obvious opening.
Every other Cingular GSM phone uses a SIM- so will this one, "child."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Reginald Dwight 2007-07-03, 10:33 am |
| In article <1183447862.800722.198190@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
teechuan@gmail.com wrote:
> Has
> anyone tried the copy and paste finger chords on the iPhone?
Of course. We're not all stupid.
> I think
> it peculiar that Apple would spend all that money buying up the
> Fingerworks multitouch, chordic patents but didn't think to keep in
> something as useful as copy & paste?
Version 1.0, my boy. Keep it simple for everyone. People will get used
to the product and things will be added...slowly and thoughtfully.
| |
| Tinman 2007-07-03, 10:33 am |
| "Reginald Dwight" wrote:
>
> Of course. We're not all stupid.
>
>
> Version 1.0, my boy. Keep it simple for everyone. People will get used
> to the product and things will be added...slowly and thoughtfully.
That kind of marketing speak usually comes from companies, not customers.
"Yes, Mrs. Jones, we realize you would like directional indicators on your
new car. But we know what's best and we will give you those kinds of
features when we think you are ready for them. Always remember that 'we
think so you don't have to!'"
--
Mike
| |
| Reginald Dwight 2007-07-03, 12:33 pm |
| In article <5ev7b4F36n0pkU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
wrote:
> That kind of marketing speak usually comes from companies, not customers.
> "Yes, Mrs. Jones, we realize you would like directional indicators on your
> new car. But we know what's best and we will give you those kinds of
> features when we think you are ready for them. Always remember that 'we
> think so you don't have to!'"
Sorry. It just tends to be the way Apple has historically operated.
BTW, Apple doesn't sell cars.
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-07-03, 3:33 pm |
| Reginald Dwight <regdwight@verizon.net> wrote
> Tinman <ask@for.it> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
Fantasy.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Sorry. It just tends to be the way Apple has historically operated.
Pig ignorant lie. Didnt happen like that with the Mac or the ipod.
| |
| Tinman 2007-07-03, 3:33 pm |
| "Reginald Dwight" wrote:
>
> BTW, Apple doesn't sell cars.
Yet.
--
Mike
|
|
|
|
|