Apple to see near 50% gross margin on each iPhone sale

[AppleInsider]

Each iPhone sold will generate nearly a 50 percent gross margin for Apple Inc. and partner Cingular Wireless, giving the companies a hefty profit, as well as plenty of room for future price cuts, according to research firm iSuppli.

Based on a preliminary functional Bill of Materials (BoM) estimate, the firm calculates that the 4Gbyte version of the Apple iPhone will carry a $229.85 materials and manufacturing cost and a $245.83 total expense, yielding a 50.7 percent margin on each unit sold at the $499 retail price.

Meanwhile, it said the 8GByte model will sport a $264.85 materials cost and a $280.83 total expense, amounting to a 51.3 percent margin at the $599 retail price.

"While iSuppli has a high degree of confidence in its conclusions, these figures are considered preliminary until we perform an actual physical teardown and analysis of the iPhone," the firm said in a report released Thursday.

The firm added that such a strong hardware profit is par for Apple's course, with the company having achieved similar margins of 45 percent and more in products including the iMac and iPod nano. But with extensive competition in the music-phone market, it may need to cut into those margins to reduce pricing in the future.

"With a 50 percent gross margin, Apple is setting itself up for aggressive price declines going forward," said Jagdish Rebello, PhD, director and principal analyst with iSuppli.

iSuppli noted in its report that Apple is due to face a bevy of competitors in music phones, with 835 models expected to be introduced by various competitors in 2007. It estimates that 14 music-enabled mobile phones with features that compete closely with the Apple iPhone already are shipping from manufacturers including Nokia, Motorola Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and LG.



"In terms of features and form factors, the closest competitor to the Apple iPhone is LG’s KE850, which will ship later this year," said Tina Teng, analyst, wireless communications, for iSuppli. Other phones with similar characteristics reportedly include Nokia’s N800, although that product is aimed more at niche markets than the broad-appeal Apple iPhone, the analyst said.

Shipments of music-enabled mobile phones will rise to 618.1 million units in 2007, up 39.9 percent from 441.7 million units in 2006, iSuppli predicts. By 2010, it sees shipments of such phones will increase to 1 billion units.

"iSuppli defines music-enabled phones as those supporting music file formats, and not necessarily as those tailored specifically for music playback," the firm said. "Thus, this number is much larger than the total available market for music-oriented handsets like the Apple iPhone."

Apple’s goal is to capture 1 percent of these unit sales, which seems attainable, according to Rebello.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[JLL]

Are those numbers including development costs and other costs related to the product?

[DeaPeaJay]

It's hard to compare the iPhone to other phones primarily cause there's nothing else like it. Feature to feature comparisons make it look like other phones are on the same level, because the only difference is the iPhone has a "multi-touch screen interface". But that effects virtually all the other features, making it an extraordinary device.

I think that fact is not yet realized by the mass public. Once everyone has seen what this thing can do I think it will explode past 1 percent. Maybe... 3 or 4?

To clarify: I think it will be 3 or 4 since Apple said they're estimate of 10 million is through 2008. I think they'll make over 1% in 07 alone.

[jacob1varghese]

it's a great phone, but way to expensive right now to steal too much market share from the big players out there.

I love the phone, but can't see myself spending $500-$600 on a phone after I sign a 2-year contract.
Other than fanboys or people with lots of extra cash lying around, who would spend that much on a phone?

$300-$400 is the absolute most I can see myself spending on a phone.
Hopefully, the price comes down sooner than later.

Aside from that, this Cingular lockdown is a huge deal breaker.

Did Apple think this through?

I don't think they will sell 10 million iPhones by the end of 2008, unless they make some serious changes or come out with new cheaper models.

[Cato988]

i think 1% in '07 is completely unreasonable if they are indeed exclusive with cingular. Cingular has a bit over 50 million users.

that means that 1/5 cingular customers will have an iphone by the end of '07.

You have to remember how absolutely gigantic the cellphone market is. 3-4% is ALOT of phones compared to what 3-4% of gaming consols is

1% is a good goal for '08 and theres nothing wrong with exceeding your goal

[Chucker]

Originally Posted by Cato988

i think 1% in '07 is completely unreasonable if they are indeed exclusive with cingular. Cingular has a bit over 50 million users.

that means that 1/5 cingular customers will have an iphone by the end of '07.

Except for this thing called "attracting new customers". Which, come to think of it, is obviously what Cingular is trying to do?

[trekker]

i Can't believe that there is practically a 50% cost for an iPod, our margin is so tightthat when we sell one to a customer who uses a credit card we actually loose money on the sale

[baranovich]

Originally Posted by JLL

Are those numbers including development costs and other costs related to the product?

Of course not! We all know (or should know) that developing a new product is VERY expensive, even if the individual components are not. If you ask me, a 50% margin is pretty steep, but remember Apple does have to cover the costs of developing the product. Just as we witnessed with the iPod, every new generation should become more affordable.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by baranovich

Of course not! We all know (or should know) that developing a new product is VERY expensive, even if the individual components are not. If you ask me, a 50% margin is pretty steep, but remember Apple does have to cover the costs of developing the product.

Plus there are shipping costs, marketing costs, support costs.

[kresh]

I used to work for Cingular before changing companies, I work for one of the 2 top National CDMA carriers. I'm a regional director of sales for 2 states.

When I was with Cingular (2 years ago) handsets costing more than $200 to the end-user made up 7% of sales.

They have grown a little in the past two years, but Apple is still going to have a hard time.

Let's see. 58 million subscribers and figure 10% capture rate instead of 7%, that works out to 5.8 million handsets.

That's 5.8 million handsets if Apple sells every handset over $200 (After discounts and contracts) at Cingular. That's just not going to happen. If they capture half of the high end market at Cingular that would only be 2.9 million handsets.

By trying themselves exclusively to Cingular and one or two carriers in Europe, I have a hard time believing Apple will even sell 10 million iPhones, much less beat their predictions as some analysts are saying.

[jbella]

Dont forget that Steve said 1 percent of a billion phones - which is 10 million - WORLDWIDE. He was not refferring to Cingular only. That is why he said by the end of 2008, he aims to have sold 10 million iPhones. By the end of 2008 I'm sure there will be cheaper models around. As for the price.. sure $500 for a phone sounds like a lot (especially for americans who are not used to actually paying full price for their phones) But what if I offered you a special bundle deal. An 8GB widescreen ipod (3.5" sceen) and a very good smartphone for $600 bucks. You'd probably think it was a pretty good deal.

As for the article itself.. what is the point of putting this kind of detailed analysis out before knowing anything about the product for sure? It's all speculation. I bet they dont even know for sure what processor is inside. How can they hope for any sort of accuracy? It feels like a headline grabbing ploy more than anything else.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by kresh

By trying themselves exclusively to Cingular and one or two carriers in Europe, I have a hard time believing Apple will even sell 10 million iPhones, much less beat their predictions as some analysts are saying.

Tying to a carrier is not normal in Europe and I certainly don't hope that they will do that.

[kresh]

Originally Posted by jbella

Dont forget that Steve said 1 percent of a billion phones - which is 10 million - WORLDWIDE. He was not refferring to Cingular only. That is why he said by the end of 2008, he aims to have sold 10 million iPhones. By the end of 2008 I'm sure there will be cheaper models around. As for the price.. sure $500 for a phone sounds like a lot (especially for americans who are not used to actually paying full price for their phones) But what if I offered you a special bundle deal. An 8GB widescreen ipod (3.5" sceen) and a very good smartphone for $600 bucks. You'd probably think it was a pretty good deal.

As for the article itself.. what is the point of putting this kind of detailed analysis out before knowing anything about the product for sure? It's all speculation. I bet they dont even know for sure what processor is inside. How can they hope for any sort of accuracy? It feels like a headline grabbing ploy more than anything else.

But how many of those billion phones worldwide are not free (or subsidized to the point of being free)? My guess is 50 to 55%. Another 30 to 35% cost less than $200 after subsidies.

So that brings the pool down to 100 million handsets or less. Then you restrict it to select carriers on top of that.

People are blown away by the billion handset market, but that's just obfuscation. It sounds better to say 1% of worldwide, 1 billion, handset market instead of 10% to 15% of the worldwide highend handset market - they are the same thing but it sounds better saying it the way Apple did. I'm not sure that the number is even reachable if there are only one or two carriers per region selling the phone worldwide.


edit: Cheaper models might help penetration. I didn't read that part of your post

[kresh]

Originally Posted by JLL

Tying to a carrier is not normal in Europe and I certainly don't hope that they will do that.

Do you think every European carrier is going to change their network (voicemail change, plus potentially others) just to get a chance to sell the iPhone. If the carrier were to get an exclusive like Cingular did, then they might.

The iPhone requires a change to existing networks.

[dancm2000]

"Each iPhone sold will generate nearly a 50 percent gross margin for Apple Inc"

So that's over $300 on each 8GB phone. Man, and after the keynote all I could think was "if only it was $150 less".

And they think they are going to sell close to 6 million phones. Do the math. $300 times 6 million = 1.8 Billion Dollars (as I hold my pinky to my mouth)

I expect some kick ass software in the next iLife bundle. And more than 1GB on my iDisk.

[BlackSummerNight]

Sorry, but there's nothing like the iPhone in the US. If u look at Asian Markets, the iPhone is actually behind. Go to foxnews.com and see how advanced the phones are over there.

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

It's hard to compare the iPhone to other phones primarily cause there's nothing else like it. Feature to feature comparisons make it look like other phones are on the same level, because the only difference is the iPhone has a "multi-touch screen interface". But that effects virtually all the other features, making it an extraordinary device.

I think that fact is not yet realized by the mass public. Once everyone has seen what this thing can do I think it will explode past 1 percent. Maybe... 3 or 4?

To clarify: I think it will be 3 or 4 since Apple said they're estimate of 10 million is through 2008. I think they'll make over 1% in 07 alone.

[Kickaha]

I disagree with that assessment of Asian phones - while they are very feature-rich, they still have physical form factors that limit what they can ultimately do, and do well.

The iPhone has no such restriction.

It's like comparing an original Mac from 1984 with an IBM 360 mainframe sold the same year. The mainframe can do a lot more at that moment, but the Mac has more potential. That's where we are right now with the iPhone. Want to do, well, anything? Write an app.

This isn't a phone, it's a handheld computer. It's actually kind of annoying that they're selling it as a phone, IMO. (OTOH, if they sold it as an Apple Handheld, then everyone would assume it was Mac only, blah blah blah, so this way they generalize it into a consumer electronics device that doesn't have the perceptual baggage.)

Imagine if they had unveiled this as a 3.5" UMPC for $600 that can *also* use cell networks for data and voice? Because that's what it is.

Anyway, it's a 'phone' so that's how it's going to be initially compared, but it's really a hell of a lot more. I see the features and functionality of this puppy exploding to do whatever any other smartphone can do, and then far exceed them.

[b3ns0n]

Originally Posted by kresh

Do you think every European carrier is going to change their network (voicemail change, plus potentially others) just to get a chance to sell the iPhone. If the carrier were to get an exclusive like Cingular did, then they might.

The iPhone requires a change to existing networks.

Yes, I do actually. If Apple doesn't go for a carrier exclusive deal, I know for certain that regardless of the changes required to the network, if I was the CEO of any carrier in (for example) the UK, I wouldn't want to be the only one NOT carrying the iPhone. I think they'll flock around it like bees around honey, and be practically falling over themselves to modify the network for visual voicemail. Then they can tout this as a feature of their network and other phone manufacturers will soon start offering it.

[jbella]

I also disagree with your assessment of phones available in the asian market. Sure a lot of them have nicer features because they have a better network available to them, and of course they are willing to pay more. I always say that it's impossible to compare the iPhone to other phones on a simple feature by feature basis. In software especially implementation matters a lot. So while two phones you are comparing might have the 'Web Browser' feature checked, is that phone's web browsing experience as good as the iPhone? Not many phones have a 3.5" 160ppi screen.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

It estimates that 14 music-enabled mobile phones with features that compete closely with the Apple iPhone already are shipping from manufacturers including Nokia, Motorola Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and LG.

A pretty touch screen does not make a phone comparable to the iPhone.
Does it have Multitouch?
Does it have a high resolution screen?
Is the hardware and software integrated by the same company?
Does it run Mac OS X?
Has thousands of hours gone into refining every aspect of the UI by some of the most talented designers in the world?

Steve Jobs said he wants to sell 10 million iPhones in one year from when the iPhone goes on sale. That means 10 million iPhones by June 2008.

[charliex]

Originally Posted by Kickaha

It's like comparing an original Mac from 1984 with an IBM 360 mainframe sold the same year. The mainframe can do a lot more at that moment, but the Mac has more potential. That's where we are right now with the iPhone. Want to do, well, anything? Write an app.

This isn't a phone, it's a handheld computer. It's actually kind of annoying that they're

how is that different from any other smarthpone, symbian, brew or windows ce , linux or one of the other many phone/computer combinations that already have had SDKs available for ages, with equally as powerful cpus and gpus ? some phones have more graphics power than the desktops did a few years ago, they have 3d acceleration, custom dsps, programmable shaders, powerful cpus and lots of memory and storage.

why does it have more potential than any other existing phone with a touchscreen, cpu and programmable os ?, not that i think a touchscreen is a great thing for a phone, but some do.

its got the typical apple polish, but there is nothing special about the hardware, the touchscreen might be innovative, but thats not revolutionary, just better , and only perhaps at that , personally i've never cared for a touchscreen phone.

your baseline comparison is way off, the difference is just the design.

A pretty touch screen does not make a phone comparable to the iPhone.
Does it have Multitouch?
Does it have a high resolution screen?
Is the hardware and software integrated by the same company?
Does it run Mac OS X?
Has thousands of hours gone into refining every aspect of the UI by some of the most talented designers in the world?

a pretty touchscreen doesn't make a phone either.
there are lots of high resolution phones available, even with 32 bit colour.
qualcomm integrates its hardware and software, as does sony ericsson, microsoft and nokia
there are phones that run linux, its not macosx, but the iphone doesn't run it either, but thats neither here nor there, if you base your phone choice on the os you run, then you're not in a real comparison mode, you're just sticking with what you know/like.
sony have put thousands of hours into hardware and ui design as well, thats why apple pinched a bunch of its vaio design people a few years.

[Chucker]

Originally Posted by charliex

there is nothing special about the hardware

And you came to that conclusion exactly how, seeing as
1) the hardware isn't finalized
2) we don't know half a thing about what components are used?

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by charliex

how is that different from any other smarthpone, symbian, brew or windows ce , linux or one of the other many phone/computer combinations that already have had SDKs available for ages, with equally as powerful cpus and gpus ? some phones have more graphics power than the desktops did a few years ago, they have 3d acceleration, custom dsps, programmable shaders, powerful cpus and lots of memory and storage.

And yet they're used... how much again? Hardly at all. I have a number of colleagues in the smartphone development world, and even they are drooling over the iPhone - because of what it represents to them as devs, not users.

why does it have more potential than any other existing phone with a touchscreen, cpu and programmable os ?, not that i think a touchscreen is a great thing for a phone, but some do.

Oh I dunno, maybe ease of development, mature APIs, being able to leverage an existing developer base...

its got the typical apple polish, but there is nothing special about the hardware, the touchscreen might be innovative, but thats not revolutionary, just better , and only perhaps at that , personally i've never cared for a touchscreen phone.

your baseline comparison is way off, the difference is just the design.

Wow. So I take it you're a Linux user then, since features uber alles? Screw the interface or the usability, it doesn't matter, and as long as you have a feature list in a mile long bullet point structure, you win?

Fine. In that case, there's no argument that will sway you, in my experience, so we'll agree to disagree.

[kenaustus]

If you look at the video iPod market as well as the phone market things look better. There will be lots of iPhone purchases that are made to replace both the iPod & mobile. This "joint purchase" will be somewhat hidden when doing projections.

The other side of the coin is the power of the Apple Store to sell the phones. How many people are going to walk into an Apple Store for one reason or another, play with the iPhone for a few minutes and decide that they want one. I have no doubts that the store will be able to not only sell it, but also have you set up & working when you leave the store.

I'm thinking that there will be a backorder situation for the first 3 months the iPhone is on the market and Apple will hit their 1% target.

[pmjoe]

Sorry, but I don't see how these numbers account for a completely overhauled UI and other software elements on OS X, likely required maintenance on that software, and also support costs for a new, unique product. Optimistically, those numbers may play out with a lot of sales (assuming all goes well for Apple and Cingular), but that's about it. Also, those prices usually don't bear out over more than a few months to a half-year. In other words, don't bet the bank on it.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by b3ns0n

Yes, I do actually. If Apple doesn't go for a carrier exclusive deal, I know for certain that regardless of the changes required to the network, if I was the CEO of any carrier in (for example) the UK, I wouldn't want to be the only one NOT carrying the iPhone. I think they'll flock around it like bees around honey, and be practically falling over themselves to modify the network for visual voicemail. Then they can tout this as a feature of their network and other phone manufacturers will soon start offering it.

I can't speak for the European market, but I do speculate that by the time the Cingular contract is over every major carrier will be offering these new network functions for the iPhone and other manufacturer's phones. I can't help but laugh that Apple has already disrupted the entire cell phone market with merely an announcement. How many cell companies execs are kicking themselves (or being kicked) for not getting an exclusive deal with Apple when they had the chance?


The article states 512MB RAM. That is twice is much as I thought it would have. That rocks!

Is the 128MB NOR Flash for OS X, or does the OS share space with the 4 or 8GB NAND?

[audiopollution]

Originally Posted by solipsism

I can't speak for the European market, but I do speculate that by the time the Cingular contract is over every major carrier will be offering these new network functions for the iPhone and other manufacturer's phones. I can't help but laugh that Apple has already disrupted the entire cell phone market with merely an announcement. How many cell companies execs are kicking themselves (or being kicked) for not getting an exclusive deal with Apple when they had the chance?


The article states 512MB RAM. That is twice is much as I thought it would have. That rocks!

Is the 128MB NAND for the OS, or does it share space with the 4 or 8GB NAND?

I'm fairly certain that an Apple representative, perhaps Greg Joswiak, stated that the OS occupies the main flash memory.

[Chucker]

Yep, according to Joswiak, the OS takes up "considerably less than half a Gigabyte", of the main flash memory.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by audiopollution

I'm fairly certain that an Apple representative, perhaps Greg Joswiak, stated that the OS occupies the main flash memory.

Thanks for the quick reply, audiopollution and Chucker.

I just looked up NOR Flash on Wikipedia. Interesting stuff.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by charliex

how is that different from any other smarthpone, symbian, brew or windows ce , linux or one of the other many phone/computer combinations that already have had SDKs available for ages, with equally as powerful cpus and gpus ? some phones have more graphics power than the desktops did a few years ago, they have 3d acceleration, custom dsps, programmable shaders, powerful cpus and lots of memory and storage.

why does it have more potential than any other existing phone with a touchscreen, cpu and programmable os ?, not that i think a touchscreen is a great thing for a phone, but some do.

its got the typical apple polish, but there is nothing special about the hardware, the touchscreen might be innovative, but thats not revolutionary, just better , and only perhaps at that , personally i've never cared for a touchscreen phone.

your baseline comparison is way off, the difference is just the design.

a pretty touchscreen doesn't make a phone either.
there are lots of high resolution phones available, even with 32 bit colour.
qualcomm integrates its hardware and software, as does sony ericsson, microsoft and nokia
there are phones that run linux, its not macosx, but the iphone doesn't run it either, but thats neither here nor there, if you base your phone choice on the os you run, then you're not in a real comparison mode, you're just sticking with what you know/like.
sony have put thousands of hours into hardware and ui design as well, thats why apple pinched a bunch of its vaio design people a few years.

Most of the major phone manufacturers use a customized Symbian OS.
I don't think this will result in the same level of hardware software integration.
Palm & Windows smartphones are a joke.(A sad, sad joke)
Linux while powerful lacks the polish and integration with hardware to compete.

The reason things will be different is because Apple has an existing customer base, developer base and existing code base.
Consumers want to buy it.
Developers want to code for it.
Their Apps are already basically done.
Apple also has an amazing software distribution channel set up already in the iTunes Store.

I realize the iPhone doesn't run MAC OS X but I'm so used to typing it.
Watch this video then tell me that multitouch is not revolutionary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXQhAlC6BBg
Also multitouch IS revolutionary and patented.

[128pluspb100siduo230]

About Apple signing Cingular, or vs versa, follow the money. Current practice is a $200+ subsidy on a mid-priced phone and $400 for a highend model just to have a 1qtr exclusive is not out of the question.

So Apple shows them a path to potentially add 10% to their subscriber base and at the same time double the 7% who purchase the most expensive plan offerings and suddenly you have a case for Apple selling these to Cincular at unblievable margins for the rollout phase. Of coure we will see more phones and other price points but we all know the 1st million will be snapped up so fast that there is no reason Apple shouldn't "sell" them as $1000+ phones with $500-600 subsidies.

Abroad the subsidized model is not in place so it makes sense to milk the carrier here for a few months and then introduce the phones at $600-800 internationally. After 2-3 qtrs and around 3 million units selling to early adoptors and working out the kinks they gear up with broader offerings and aim to sell millions per qtr in the last half of "08.

Raven

[charliex]

Originally Posted by Kickaha

And yet they're used... how much again? Hardly at all. I have a number of colleagues in the smartphone development world, and even they are drooling over the iPhone - because of what it represents to them as devs, not users.

Oh I dunno, maybe ease of development, mature APIs, being able to leverage an existing developer base...



Wow. So I take it you're a Linux user then, since features uber alles? Screw the interface or the usability, it doesn't matter, and as long as you have a feature list in a mile long bullet point structure, you win?

Fine. In that case, there's no argument that will sway you, in my experience, so we'll agree to disagree.

nope, i make commerical games for cellphones, have done for 5 years, and i'm not a linux user either, i mentioned the linux phones as being available thats all.. all the smartphone developers (including myself) i know aren't all that interested in the iphone, because they know apple is going to severely limit who can do what on it like they do for the ipod. Apple will patent a bunch of stuff, and make us jump through a bunch of hoops to develop for, and it'll be a relatively small userbase, they've already limited themselves to cingular.


ease of development, mature api's so the cellphones that are using OS's that have been in development longer than OSX don't have that already? I can already easily develop just about anything i want on just about any cellphone, our company has developed a mature api already. But i'm not entirely sure you are qualified to even talk about that.

all you're basically saying is you've got no real quantifiable reasoning for why the iphone is better other than its got a touschreen and its a polished UI/useability, which it does, however thats got nothing to do with the original comment about how powerful it is underneath in comparision to other smartphones.

i never said screw the ui or useability, those aren't the points in contention, the points are the relative power of other smartphones.

But on that personal taste question, I dont yet know that the iphones ui makes it a better phone for me than my nokia, which would cost me $50 to replace, its unlocked, has pop3 email, music, browser, sms, mms, bluetooth, IR, a full flip out keyboard, camera, works in most places in the world, isn't limited to one carrier, talk time up in the 8 hour range, standby time in the order of days, and has a smaller volume, and it makes calls.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

I think people who are downplaying the impact of the the iPhone are forgetting one major thing.
The iPhone as we saw it in the keynote is a beta of iPhone OS X 10.0.
A year from now we will be discussing all the major new features in iPhone OS X 10.1

Most other smartphones are pretty static development-wise.
I bought my first smartphone in 2000. It was a Kyocera that ran the Palm OS.
Palm has been in the Smartphone business for over 7 years and this is best they can do!!!

I think the pace of iPhone OS X will mirror what we saw in Mac OS X.
Every major release has been a quantum leap in functionality and performance.
Imagine the iPhone in 7 years running iPhone OS X 10.5

[TenoBell]

its got the typical apple polish, but there is nothing special about the hardware, the touchscreen might be innovative, but thats not revolutionary, just better , and only perhaps at that , personally i've never cared for a touchscreen phone.

The same can be said for the iPod. It uses basically the same hardware as every other mp3 player. The UI makes all the difference in why the iPod dominates the market.

[charliex]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

Most of the major phone manufacturers use a customized Symbian OS.
I don't think this will result in the same level of hardware software integration.
Palm & Windows smartphones are a joke.(A sad, sad joke)
Linux while powerful lacks the polish and integration with hardware to compete.

The reason things will be different is because Apple has an existing customer base, developer base and existing code base.
Consumers want to buy it.
Developers want to code for it.
Their Apps are already basically done.
Apple also has an amazing software distribution channel set up already in the iTunes Store.

I realize the iPhone doesn't run MAC OS X but I'm so used to typing it.
Watch this video then tell me that multitouch is not revolutionary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXQhAlC6BBg
Also multitouch IS revolutionary and patented.

A couple of points

Most do not use Symbian derivatives, Custom OS with J2ME is the largest userbase, both on userbase and deployment, the rest is split betwen symbian/REX/Brew, windows Ce and then all the others, linux/custom etc.

I'm a consumer and a developer, and i don't want to buy it, i'd like to code for it, i'd like to code games for the ipod too, but i can't, i think its snazzy and cool and the kids at starbucks would ohh and ahh over it, but they do that over the RAZR too , and thats a piece of junk, so reflecting on that i can't say whats popular is necessary whats good.

I personally think the iphones touchscreen is evolutionary, not revolutionary if it were a revolution then it'd change it all dramatically, it won't, its an important difference, there are such touchscreens in existance on other platforms, theres nothing in it we haven't already seen elsewhere, just not the specific elements on this platform yet. Most pure touchscreen phones on the cellphone market have failed, even when they've added a tactile keyboard like the p800 series. A patent says nothing these days except marketing, you can patent just about anything now, all it really says is you can't do this without paying us, or at all.

As for itunes, sure its fine, but since i buy apps through the cellphone, i don't want to hook it upto to a desktop to buy stuff, and the carriers already have their own infrastructure in place already, Verizon have their get it now service, which allows you buy games, videos apps etc already and they have 100% coverage in their userbase, can't beat that, they're not going to give that up easily.

its a great device, it looks cool, its also really expensive and its squarely aimed at a very small sector of the market, theres nothing wrong with that at all. If it were down in the 300/400 range i'd consider buying one.

But there are lots of other really cool phones out there with much better hardware and featuresets, they may not have the polished UI of apple, they're really really good at design, but the rest of the companies aren't morons either. Again just look at the popularity of the RAZR.

[TenoBell]

I personally think the iphones touchscreen is evolutionary, not revolutionary if it were a revolution then it'd change it all dramatically, it won't, its an important difference, there are such touchscreens in existance on other platforms, theres nothing in it we haven't already seen elsewhere, just not the specific elements on this platform yet.

While I agree the iPhones touch screen is more evolutionary than revolutionary. Where I disagree is that others have done the same. I myself have never seen a touch screen phone that does exactly what the iPhone does.

Which other touch screen UI allows scrolling with your finger, and allows velocity of scrolling to increase. Or two point touch at the same time. Or reorientation by physically turning the device. Or page enlargement from finger pinching. These are only what's been shown so far. There could be more in 5 months.

[charliex]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

The same can be said for the iPod. It uses basically the same hardware as every other mp3 player. The UI makes all the difference in why the iPod dominates the market.

Somewhat, I don't attribute the success of the ipod purely to the UI, i think apple marketed it very well and it was the right time for it. They made it very appealing, they're incredibly good at that.

Again you can further extend it to the notebooks, the hardware is now basically the same, but the UI on OSX is much better, its gaining some ground, but its still a very small market, so the ipod was a huge sucess and beat all others hands down, the new powerbook didn't. I prefer the design of the Sony Vaios to the apple notebooks, I'd be happy running OSX on my X505 CP.

So the quality of the UI doesn't necesarily mean it'll blow away the competition, there are a lot of factors.

[TenoBell]

Somewhat, I don't attribute the success of the ipod purely to the UI, i think apple marketed it very well and it was the right time for it. They made it very appealing, they're incredibly good at that.

A product that has to perform a task is not going to overwhelmingly dominate its market simply because the company is good at marketing. The product has to perform in some way better than its competition.

Again you can further extend it to the notebooks, the hardware is now basically the same, but the UI on OSX is much better, its gaining some ground, but its still a very small market, so the ipod was a huge sucess and beat all others hands down, the new powerbook didn't. I prefer the design of the Sony Vaios to the apple notebooks, I'd be happy running OSX on my X505 CP.

These two are not comparable. The Mac has no chance of having the success of the iPod and switching to intel was not going to make that happen.

[lfmorrison]

Originally Posted by solipsism

The article states 512MB RAM. That is twice is much as I thought it would have. That rocks!

First of all, it's a guess, since nobody has had access to it to see what's actually in there yet.

And the article is guessing around 512 Mbit, whigh would actually be either 64 MiB (most likely) or 61 MiB (highly unlikely in the RAM world) depending on whether they're using conventional or SI units.

Is the 128MB NOR Flash for OS X, or does the OS share space with the 4 or 8GB NAND?

The execute-in-place property of NOR flash would make it an ideal place to store the static components of an OS. But half a gig of it... That would be getting expensive compared to NAND.
More likely, it would be used to store any running programs when you shut off the phone so that they come back up in the same state when the phone is turned on again without having to waste standby battery power on the RAM.

[charliex]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

While I agree the iPhones touch screen is more evolutionary than revolutionary. Where I disagree is that others have done the same. I myself have never seen a touch screen phone that does exactly what the iPhone does.

Which other touch screen UI allows scrolling with your finger, and allows velocity of scrolling to increase. Or two point touch at the same time. Or reorientation by physically turning the device. Or page enlargement from finger pinching. These are only what's been shown so far. There could be more in 5 months.

Someone may have done this but I haven't seen it.

I've seen the FIC-GTA001 which has multi touch 'gestures' there are other devices that have that capability, that aren't phones but are handheld, the DS obviously, which is what i meant by other platforms.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/smartphon...one-213016.php