or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon: Apple's iPhone made us think different about mobile apps, data
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon: Apple's iPhone made us think different about mobile apps, data

post #1 of 103
Thread Starter 
Years after Verizon Wireless shunned Apple's iPhone because it wanted more control over the device, a company representative has acknowledged that the iPhone App Store was a "watershed" event in the mobile industry.

At the January 2007 introduction of the original iPhone, Verizon executive Jim Gerace told USA Today that his company has passed up the opportunity to parter with Apple because the two companies could not agree on a variety of issues.

At stake in the negotiations were retail distribution issues (Apple initially didn't want to sell the iPhone through WalMart and Best Buy), customer support handling (Apple wanted to support device issues through AppleCare), and the reinstallation of Verizon software and store elements.

Verizon had already been operating its "GetItNow" store as a way to sell its wireless subscribers ringtones and rental apps, most of which were built using Qualcomm's BREW, a proprietary mobile development platform cousin of JavaME. Apple had no interest in supporting BREW or Java on the iPhone.

Apple also wanted to integrate the iPhone with its iTunes Store just as it had with the iPod, and arguably intended from the beginning to launch its own App Store of software as well, although many pundits insist that the company didn't even conceive the concept of third party software until shortly before the launch of iPhone 2.0, as if the entire iOS software platform were simply a reaction to developers' lack of enthusiasm for web apps.

In the three years since the iPhone's launch--and two years after the unveiling of the iPhone App Store--Verizon is now admitting that it misjudged the opportunity it had passed up with Apple. In April, Verizon's chief executive Ivan Seidenberg said he informed Apple that his company would like to carry the iPhone, and alluded to talk that Apple was working on a handset compatible with the carrier's network technology.

Verizon is now admitting that Apple's entry into the mobile phone market has indelibly rewritten the rules of the cellular phone industry in such a way that has even forced carriers who don't sell the iPhone to think differently about how they accommodate independent software stores and how they sell and allocate data services.

Verizon embraces mobile apps

This week, Verizon business development executive director Jennifer Byrne told the audience at the PaidContent Mobile conference that "while we may have had the first app store, GetItNow, weve learned a lot, with the watershed being the iPhone. Its a drastic change from the walled garden stage to the open approach. Its been a very big shift.

Byrne said Verizon has "embraced" the idea of a software app store operating independently of the mobile carrier, using "walled garden" language to describe her own company's GetItNow store in contrast to the "open approach" of Apple's App Store. That's an interesting perspective given that Apple's critics often refer to the iPhone App Store as being a "walled garden" because of the curation Apple imposes.

Verizon now supports both RIM's BlackBerry AppWorld and Google's Android Market. "Weve seen a tremendous response, so it's validated the decision," Byrne said. That shift will no doubt make it easier for Apple and Verizon to come to agreement on future iOS devices, something that has been long been rumored to be imminent but which has not yet officially developed beyond the stage of speculation.

On page 2 of 2: Verizon, Goole look toward toward the web while Apple plans for a native app future.

Verizon, Google look toward the web while Apple plans for a native app future

At the same time, Verizon also agrees with Google's outlook that native apps will eventually give way to web apps. Google employees have noted that the company sees its Android apps as a temporary platform that will eventually make way for web apps as soon as browser technology improves enough.

That's key to the company's Chrome OS, where apps are entirely web-based, built entirely from HTML5, JavaScript and CSS web standards rather than in Android's Java-like runtime, native Linux apps, or another runtime like Windows Phone 7's Silverlight. Google has supported the idea of running Adobe Flash content within ChromeOS however, largely in reaction to Apple's refusal to support Flash within iOS.

Byrne echoed the same sentiment on web apps, adding, "the real tipping point for [mobile web apps running in] the browser will be 4G because it will literally be your computer in your pocket [] quasi-instantaneous. Thatll be the point we see even more activity on the browser side.

In contrast, Apple's pioneering lead in Cocoa Touch native apps for iOS devices is being pursued as a long term platform, and shows no intention of being a temporary effort designed to last just until HTML5 web browsers become more widely established. Apple already supports a leading implementation of HTML5 in its iOS Safari browser, and has rolled out tools and specifications designed to help developer create native-looking mobile apps for the iPhone, iPad and Mac.

However, Apple's own flagship web app suite in MobileMe isn't even accessible from its iOS devices. Instead, the company has bundled native iOS apps that handle MobileMe mail, contacts, and calendars, as well creating new native apps for MobileMe's iDisk, Gallery, and Find My iPhone location and remote management features. Apple's position on web apps has been one of providing additional mobility and convenience rather than replacing desktop apps with web alternatives.

Apple's iLife and iWork desktop apps for the Mac are supported in part by web services within MobileMe and iWork.com. In contrast, Google's Docs, Maps, and other apps are almost entirely web-based. Even where Apple accesses Google's web services, it has done so using native iOS apps, including Maps, YouTube, and integrated Safari search.

Verizon now feeling the heat of smartphone data users

Verizon is also discovering the far greater demand that sophisticated smartphones with functional web browsers and video streaming services will exact on the network. Byrne told the audience "On [the new Android-based Motorola] Droid X, were seeing something like 5x the data usage of any other device."

As Verizon begins to accumulate more sophisticated smartphone users that do more than just text message (as its RIM BlackBerry and Windows Mobile users have been largely limited to doing by their poor browsers and limited media features), the carrier will likely pursue the same limited data service tiers that AT&T began and that most international carriers enact. Additionally, Verizon may have to scale back some of its more valuable and attractive services such as tethering and WiFi hotspot features.

Apple pioneered heavy mobile data use on the iPhone, pushing AT&T to offer unlimited data services to users and making WiFi standard at a time when most carriers forbid phone makers from including non-mobile data access. Prior to the iPhone's launch, few Verizon phones were allowed to offer WiFi features. Apple also pushed free Internet standards, such as email with rich attachments, ahead of mobile industry SMS and MMS messaging services on the iPhone.

When Apple finally did add MMS services to iOS 3.0, AT&T initially balked to support the new service for months, complaining that it didn't think it could accommodate the vast demand it anticipated from iPhone users.
post #2 of 103
I wonder, will people try to burn down Verizon Wireless when they switch to tiered data plans like they did with AT&T, or will they blindly continue to assume Verizon is perfect because "everyone" says they are, regardless of what works best in THEIR part of the country?
post #3 of 103
Didn't I just read that Verizon is still shoveling trialware apps on their smartphones? (Edit: Yup, via DF: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...ndroid-phones/ and http://consumerist.com/2010/05/veriz...bloatware.html)

Let's not be too quick to give them credit for seeing the light; after all, Verizon is still the preeminent nickle-and-dime-them-to-death vendor in the modern age.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #4 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

I wonder, will people try to burn down Verizon Wireless when they switch to tiered data plans like they did with AT&T, or will they blindly continue to assume Verizon is perfect because "everyone" says they are, regardless of what works best in THEIR part of the country?

They'll probably be angry at Verizon for a few hours, then divert their anger to AT&T. Eventually they'll blame it on Apple.
post #5 of 103
Verizon is doing little more than stating the obvious, and though Apple did make the 'apps store' paradigm well known/more popular, WinMo/Palm had theirs many years prior, so the groundwork had already been laid.

Good on Apple for 'polishing' things up for the average consumer.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #6 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Verizon is doing little more than stating the obvious, and though Apple did make the 'apps store' paradigm well known/more popular, WinMo/Palm had theirs many years prior, so the groundwork had already been laid.

Good on Apple for 'polishing' things up for the average consumer.

Assuming your perspective is correct: How come we are not using the mobile devices that were pioneered by Palm or the one shown by Bill Gates, many years ago?

Did they also lay the groundwork for devices that led to the iPhone?

Why did it take an iPod to popularize digital music? Why did it take an iPhone to shake the phone industry? Why did it take an iPad to catch the interest of consumers?

Is there any reason why other companies have to emulate Apple if other companies did lay the groundwork?

To borrow your terms, why did the average consumer turn to the "polished" products of Apple rather than stick with those you deemed to be the pioneers that laid the groundwork?

Why would the "average consumer" even buy the expensive products of Apple? Simply because they are "polished" like a :"faux diamond"? Really stuoid idiotic "average consumers"!

And they are ALL so filthy rich, they can't help themselves but pay for all those overpriced Apple products.

Can you cite innovations that were initiated by Microsoft that became game changers beyond desktop computing?

CGC
post #7 of 103
Kiss and make up already!! There are millions waiting for the iPhone "4v"...
post #8 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

They'll probably be angry at Verizon for a few hours, then divert their anger to AT&T. Eventually they'll blame it on Apple.

LOL, too true. I guess that's the price Apple pays for innovating and dragging these companies with them kicking and screaming.
post #9 of 103
Can't speak for all Android phones, but my Incredible came with crapware mainly from HTC as far as I can tell. The Verizon crap that Daniel talks about here are on the Android store through a special Verizon storefront, but didn't come preinstalled. Either way, not a good sign for the future of Android unless Google exerts more control (don't see how they can apart from offering their own phone, which proved to be a failure). Would this open the door for Microsoft to provide a middle ground between the laissez-faire Google and the draconian (at least according to its critics) Apple? Time will tell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Didn't I just read that Verizon is still shoveling trialware apps on their smartphones? (Edit: Yup, via DF: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...ndroid-phones/ and http://consumerist.com/2010/05/veriz...bloatware.html)

Let's not be too quick to give them credit for seeing the light; after all, Verizon is still the preeminent nickle-and-dime-them-to-death vendor in the modern age.
post #10 of 103
Whether we use an iPhone or not, we have all benefited from Apple's entrance into the marketplace. Hearing this, I am very glad that Apple did not submit to Verizon's demands in 2007.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

LOL, too true. I guess that's the price Apple pays for innovating and dragging these companies with them kicking and screaming.
post #11 of 103
What does Steve Jobs create that isn't a watershed in any industry he get's involved with?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #12 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

Assuming your perspective is correct? How come we are not using the mobile devices that were pioneered by Palm or the one shown by Bill Gates, many years ago?

Did they also laid the groundwork for devices that led to the iPhone?

CGC

Yes...
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #13 of 103
Wait, the App Store is merely a polished WinMo/Palm store?

As a developer and a consumer, I wholeheartedly disagree. The App store is a complete paradigm shift as are the devices with access to it.
post #14 of 103
Verizon passed up an opportunity to suck ass like AT&T does. The phone companies want to control the hardware and Apple told them "F*ck you, we make the phone do what we want, how we want." In spite of their problems, AT&T still wins, but with a big caveat: poor service ratings that a great phone made up for.

Verizon is still behind the ball. Apple will likely continue to change the rules for the carriers, but they will resist it only until its success is proven. Just wait and see.
post #15 of 103
2010 Verizon = 2007 AT&T

Verizon's network is about to be tested.

"Verizon is also discovering the far greater demand that sophisticated smartphones with functional web browsers and video streaming services will exact on the network. Byrne told the audience "On [the new Android-based Motorola] Droid X, were seeing something like 5x the data usage of any other device." "
post #16 of 103
Were cell phone companies really restricting phones from wi-fi being standard like the article states? My HTC-built 8125 on then-Cingular (now AT&T) had 802.11b wireless in 2005.
post #17 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post
Assuming your perspective is correct? How come we are not using the mobile devices that were pioneered by Palm or the one shown by Bill Gates, many years ago?

Did they also laid the groundwork for devices that led to the iPhone?

CGC

Yes...

And the latest evolution, the best that they could come up with, after all those pioneering groundwork was:

The Kin?


I bet they are selling like hotcakes???

Did you get one for yourself?

CGC
post #18 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Verizon now supports both RIM's BlackBerry AppWorld and Google's Android Market. "We’ve seen a tremendous response, so it's validated the decision," Byrne said. That shift will no doubt make it easier for Apple and Verizon to come to agreement on future iOS devices, something that has been long been rumored to be imminent but which has not yet officially developed beyond the stage of speculation.

I still can't see a CDMA iPhone happening.

But I can see Apple trying to make an LTE phone (on Verizon) just sold in LTE locations but which roams to T-mobile elsewhere (2G?)

(edit: better in the T-mobile thread... http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...83#post1681683)
post #19 of 103
They were so adamant that they be able to control the crapware they wanted to put on the phone and Apple was having none of it. They have a crappy "get it now" store which charges you for every damn thing and you can't even put your own music on older phones that hard the hardware for it. I think the carriers make money from the crapware and don't give a rats tushie if the customer is offended.
post #20 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb View Post

Kiss and make up already!! There are millions waiting for the iPhone "4v"...

Im so fedup of waiting for the iphone 4 here in Canada
post #21 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Verizon is doing little more than stating the obvious, and though Apple did make the 'apps store' paradigm well known/more popular, WinMo/Palm had theirs many years prior, so the groundwork had already been laid.

Good on Apple for 'polishing' things up for the average consumer.

I had (and loved) a Palm Treo 600 for a year and half before getting my first iPhone, so I know what Palm does and no, there was no app store for the Palm, or for WinCE/PocketPC/WinMo.

Once the App Store debuted, I was... amazed. Apple at once solved:
* Distribution - providing the infrastructure for download of App
* Marketing - getting the App visible to the users via search, category, top XX lists or adverts
* Cash Management - removing the need for paypal or other payment collection nightmares
* File Management - making it easy for the users
* Installation - purchase is licensing and installation
* Upgrade notification - let the users know when v1.1 that fixed the bugs is ready
* Backups - mirrored the Palm model which was very apt IMHO

NONE of these existed on my Palm or WinMobile devices (or for that matter, any other mobile either). I'm probably also missing some of the advances they did, but it was amazing. Slam F-ing dunk.
post #22 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

Wait, the App Store is merely a polished WinMo/Palm store?

As a developer and a consumer, I wholeheartedly disagree. The App store is a complete paradigm shift as are the devices with access to it.

In all fairness, the App Store became what it was because developers saw the opportunity and pressured Apple to open it up to them. [The App Store was not announched the same time as part of the iPhone launch.]

Apple was good enough to "see the light", take advantage of a good idea, and supported its development wholeheartedly. And the rest is history.

The collective efforts of developers with the "Apple touch" (not to be confused with the touch technology) helped make the iOS mobile computing devices what they are today.

The App Store could even be better, if Apple publish a more transparent set of rules. With consent of developers, use actual examples why an App was rejected.

CGC
post #23 of 103
Whether we use an iPhone or not, we have all benefited from Apple's entrance into the marketplace. Hearing this, I am very glad that Apple did not submit to Verizon's demands in 2007






iHates called that draconian
post #24 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Years after Verizon Wireless shunned Apple's iPhone because it wanted more control over the device...

For the record, there is another big reason why Apple didn't go with Verizon that's rarely mentioned, and isn't mentioned in this article.

To go with Verizon Apple would have to make a CDMA phone, but there is no way that they would hobble themselves by not selling iPhones in Europe and Japan so they would have to make a second GSM phone in relatively short order.

In other words if they went with Verizon, they would complicate their production line immensely from the get-go because they would be making two versions of every phone every year, or they would have a much shorter exclusivity period with Verizon (like a year or less), or they might even have both problems at once.

I know people love the idea of a Verizon iPhone and so forth but IMO it's much more likely that a Verizon deal was *never* in the cards and that Apple simply played Verizon off of AT&T, to get AT&T to cave on what they wanted them to do.

What they ended up doing (going with GSM and AT&T), makes a thousand percent more sense than any of the alternate theories people like to spin. There has been practically zero downside to the AT&T exclusivity except for the recent lifeline it has given the runner up (Android).
post #25 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

I wonder, will people try to burn down Verizon Wireless when they switch to tiered data plans like they did with AT&T, or will they blindly continue to assume Verizon is perfect because "everyone" says they are, regardless of what works best in THEIR part of the country?

This sums everything up. My favorite part:

"In my mind, Apple is just another in a long list of companies who make the mistake of following their own vision — like Porsche or Nike. Whatever happened to just fitting in?"


post #26 of 103
What is this? Is this a leak that states that Verizon will get the iphone? Is this Verizon creating a market position against AT&T? Wait for us, don't buy yet? Do you think SJ would have approved of a partner mouthing off like this, or is this managing the release?

This appears to be a strategic marketing maneuver. Verizon is eating crow, while crowing at the same time.
post #27 of 103
OK now I'm ready to believe Verizon iPhone rumors.

Admission of being wrong and recognition of Apple's vision means that relations can now be repaired and iPhone can make its way onto big red and both companies save face.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #28 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

I still can't see a CDMA iPhone happening.

Me too. I think Apple will wait until the real 4G packet-switched all-IP networks have been rolled out, maybe by 2012. They will all use the same standard (which hasn't even been chosen yet) so manufacturers can just build one worldwide phone. In theory, anyway.

By then, AT&T will be saturated with iPhone users, and the percentage of new subscriber iPhone activations will drop. That means it will be time for Apple to work with other carriers like Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and whoever else. Any carrier using 4G.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #29 of 103
So why is the DroidX pre-loaded with 3rd party crapware? None of the carriers have learned a thing. If the iPhone disappeared tomorrow, they'd still be shilling their crummy Java games and expensive ringtones.
post #30 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

At the same time, Verizon also agrees with Google's outlook that native apps will eventually give way to web apps. Google employees have noted that the company sees its Android apps as a temporary platform that will eventually make way for web apps as soon as browser technology improves enough.

That's key to the company's Chrome OS, where apps are entirely web-based, built entirely from HTML5, JavaScript and CSS web standards rather than in Android's Java-like runtime, native Linux apps, or another runtime like Windows Phone 7's Silverlight. Google has supported the idea of running Adobe Flash content within ChromeOS however, largely in reaction to Apple's refusal to support Flash within iOS.

I still can't get my head round the idea of web apps. Phones/pads will continue to increase in computational power, along with increased energy efficiencies and battery life. Why wouldn't you want to be doing your processing on your own device rather than sending it off to a server somewhere to do it instead? This would be entirely dependant on the network being up, or available where you happen to be, and would be an act of faith if the data was sensitive that its security was assured. Why go through that when you already have "a computer in your pocket"?

Also, boy are they going to have to upgrade the network! Sending your 10MB raw image up for a bit of tweaking, retrieving it, sending it up again for another tweak and so on. I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #31 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by 801 View Post

Verizon is eating crow, while crowing at the same time.

Nice turn of phrase.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #32 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

I still can't get my head round the idea of web apps. Phones/pads will continue to increase in computational power, along with increased energy efficiencies and battery life. Why wouldn't you want to be doing your processing on your own device rather than sending it off to a server somewhere to do it instead? This would be entirely dependant on the network being up, or available where you happen to be, and would be an act of faith if the data was sensitive that its security was assured. Why go through that when you already have "a computer in your pocket"?

Also, boy are they going to have to upgrade the network! Sending your 10MB raw image up for a bit of tweaking, retrieving it, sending it up again for another tweak and so on. I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.

HTML5 supports offline storage and offline database.

of course sending a 10MB image online just for editing is going to be a problem, but for other things it's really not totally impossible. In fact Google's betting their Chrome OS on that.
post #33 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

I still can't see a CDMA iPhone happening.

But I can see Apple trying to make an LTE phone (on Verizon) just sold in LTE locations but which roams to T-mobile elsewhere (2G?)

(edit: better in the T-mobile thread... http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...83#post1681683)

I disagree.
Some may argue that the potential sales on Verizon are limited. Maybe a couple of million phones.
No one knows the Return of Investment (ROI) on the iPhones. How many phones would they have to sell on Verizon to brake even. Covering all the cost of deployment etc.
Well.. Steve knows.

My guess is maybe 200.000-600.000 phones. Maybe more, maybe less.

Another factor in having the iPhone on Verizon is home market pleasing.
You want your home market happy.
Few companies start off with global sales. The home market is something to fall back on and is usually where your business is best.
post #34 of 103
Web apps are great if you have connectivity etc etc.

Not so good in airplane-mode though.

Even though it's a phone, it still has to have *some* local apps. And, oh, I don't want all my personal data on someone else's cloud. Not until the legal ownership issues are resolved.
post #35 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.

I think it is more: Mac Pros are a temporary solution until bandwidth increases enough and all your data moves into the cloud.
post #36 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

HTML5 supports offline storage and offline database.

of course sending a 10MB image online just for editing is going to be a problem, but for other things it's really not totally impossible. In fact Google's betting their Chrome OS on that.

I can certainly understand offline storage that you can access from any device anywhere on the network, but online databases already exist, there are some I access every day, but you don't need an app for that other than a browser.

Perhaps the thinking is that you would just need a very cheap dumb terminal in your pocket as opposed to a $600 version of a 1990 supercomputer!
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #37 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Let's not be too quick to give them credit for seeing the light; after all, Verizon is still the preeminent nickle-and-dime-them-to-death vendor in the modern age.

Let's not forget that AT&T just recently adopted Qualcomm BREW as their platform for all their mid level feature phones.

Nickel and diming is alive and well.
post #38 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

I still can't get my head round the idea of web apps. Phones/pads will continue to increase in computational power, along with increased energy efficiencies and battery life. Why wouldn't you want to be doing your processing on your own device rather than sending it off to a server somewhere to do it instead? This would be entirely dependant on the network being up, or available where you happen to be, and would be an act of faith if the data was sensitive that its security was assured. Why go through that when you already have "a computer in your pocket"?

Also, boy are they going to have to upgrade the network! Sending your 10MB raw image up for a bit of tweaking, retrieving it, sending it up again for another tweak and so on. I would have thought that web apps were a temporary solution until such time as you've got a Mac Pro in your pocket.

Indeed.

They "Think Different" my @ss! (In this case "Think Differently" is more appropriate, as they really need to change the way they think rather than just consider different ways of thinking!)

Web apps! They will get what remains of their genitalia handed to them on a platter (again) if they really believe things will be moving to web apps. Just what everyone wantsapps that only work when you pay for and have a signal. This makes me think more than ever that they will *not* be getting iPhones anytime soon! Idiots.
post #39 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

I still can't see a CDMA iPhone happening.

But I can see Apple trying to make an LTE phone (on Verizon) just sold in LTE locations but which roams to T-mobile elsewhere (2G?)

(edit: better in the T-mobile thread... http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...83#post1681683)

I guess you didn't read the in-depth Wired article this week where they said Apple is working with Qualcomm to make the hybrid CDMA/3G chip.
post #40 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

HTML5 supports offline storage and offline database.

of course sending a 10MB image online just for editing is going to be a problem, but for other things it's really not totally impossible. In fact Google's betting their Chrome OS on that.

"The Cloud" is a tool, not a destination!
Google's "Chrome OS" is a silly step backwards. Some folks will lay down for Google, but anyone who values their data and their privacy will not be charmed. Frankly, I think Google has run its course and will begin to decline unless they get back to concentrating on value for users rather than surreptitiously lining their own pockets by selling their users out. A business or individual with valuable data would be irresponsible to make use of most Google services or software.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon: Apple's iPhone made us think different about mobile apps, data