or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple iPhone may capture 26 percent of smartphone buyers - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple iPhone may capture 26 percent of smartphone buyers - report - Page 2

post #41 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

Computer sales at the enterprise level are a commodity at best. While the volume sales to enterprise customers could lower component costs, I just don't see Apple chasing it.

You really can't blame them; with 7.6% market share (revealed today) in the US, but with 50% of Microsoft's net income, Apple seems to have their business plan down cold!

Yeah, I know, but it is still a weakness. It means that much less that people will be familiar with it. We use Apple, but we only are enterprise in a loose term, definetly not the hundred thousand employee company of Corporate America. That is a huge market, sure hindered by volume discounts, but heck, if they got half profit and doubled their sales, it's the same amount in the pocket not even accounting for economy of scale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhill View Post

It is now starting to sink in.

Remember, boys and girls, Apple gets a (as of yet undisclosed amount) kickback from every iPhone sold, from every month's bill. And that's something that no other handset maker gets. So when they have sold 10 million iPhones they will be receiving, oh maybe, $300 Million per year in free money from royalties. Is it any wonder Verizon said "No" Boy will they be sorry.

And don't forget, Apple sells an enterprise server, Xserve. It would be a snap for them to develop a mail server app and give it away with every Xserve sold. But let's worry about the consumer end first.

At current growth rate Apple Inc. will PASS Microsoft in market capitalization in about 5.5 years. Whether or not they pass them in PC market share. And that's assuming MSFT's share price doesn't decline from here. Why would it go up, if they are loosing market share to Apple?

This is a multi-year Steve Jobs renaissance, and it's just getting started.

Yeah, the royalties Apple is going to get is rarely touched. Good point. The XServe is a great machine, but hasn't really cracked the enterprise market, Apple will have to keep pushing for a while to get it in... Maybe the PowerPC6 chip in an XServe, they do have the Universal binary after all...
post #42 of 84
Quote:
Yeah, I know, but it is still a weakness. It means that much less that people will be familiar with it. We use Apple, but we only are enterprise in a loose term, definetly not the hundred thousand employee company of Corporate America. That is a huge market, sure hindered by volume discounts, but heck, if they got half profit and doubled their sales, it's the same amount in the pocket not even accounting for economy of scale.

Exactly, and before this stupid argument about whether Apple is a Software company or not this was exactly my point and as i work in the enterprise application industry i do have experience to back up my thoughts. The enterprise market is somewhere that i feel Apple will have to get into at some point soon, to be honest it is a no brainer. I am a fairly recent convert to Mac and i have been blown away by OSX, If it were up to me i would never use a windows machine again, but my work laptop is Windows.

The thought of a company as innovative, creative and brave as Apple is seriously having a go at the enterprise communications market would excite me and should scare the shit out of Microsoft, IBM and Novell and i cannot help feeling that Apple is slowly putting everything in place to make it a viable option. It maybe is not the obvious candidates that could point to this, not even the iPhone which one could see as the beginnings of a business device, but potentially it is Safari for windows that one might see as the beginning. Or maybe i am full of shit, who knows, I would like to see it though.
post #43 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

Exactly, and before this stupid argument about whether Apple is a Software company or not this was exactly my point and as i work in the enterprise application industry i do have experience to back up my thoughts. The enterprise market is somewhere that i feel Apple will have to get into at some point soon, to be honest it is a no brainer. I am a fairly recent convert to Mac and i have been blown away by OSX, If it were up to me i would never use a windows machine again, but my work laptop is Windows.

The thought of a company as innovative, creative and brave as Apple is seriously having a go at the enterprise communications market would excite me and should scare the shit out of Microsoft, IBM and Novell and i cannot help feeling that Apple is slowly putting everything in place to make it a viable option. It maybe is not the obvious candidates that could point to this, not even the iPhone which one could see as the beginnings of a business device, but potentially it is Safari for windows that one might see as the beginning. Or maybe i am full of shit, who knows, I would like to see it though.

That's something I do agree with. But, it seems as though Jobs doesn't.
post #44 of 84
As a developer I can say that I'd prefer "real" apps for iPhone, but I do understand the security/stability concerns. However, web apps can be very powerful and the key limitations are more faced on desktops than mobile devices (no drag and drop between apps or windows).

The iPhone's always active connectivity and interactive UI is remarkable. Knowing where web technologies are going (integrated DB in the Browser, for example) this device truly is revolutionary. And this is only version 1.0.
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #45 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

Actually, i can't stop until i comment on that, i missed this quote. I cannot stop laughing at it though. are you 5 years old or something?

Do you know if apple released an iMac tomorrow with Vista pre-installed it would be the fastest selling computer of all time? Do you know why? Because people would love an iMac, Mac's are cool, they have been since 1997, everyone wants one on there desk, but they are brainwashed into thinking they need windows and are too scared to spend money on something as strange to them as a Mac. If Apple really wanted to be the biggest hardware vendor in the world they could be tomorrow, just by pre-installing windows. And do you know what the biggest irony would be? That the only reason Mac's are so good is because they do not run Windows.

You have completely destroyed your own argument.

It's always a bad idea to jump in the middle of these, but...

Though I love your enthusiastic support of the platform, murphyweb, I really couldn't disagree more with your over-simplification of the situation. A HUGE number of computer users, sadly, buy merely based around price and what they are familiar with. This, along with bad experiences in the non-Jobsian era of Apple, is still a big barrier for many users that may otherwise switch. An iMac, seen by many of these people, would simply by a "more expensive computer" compared to the stripped down low-end Dell, etc., alternative (even though the Windows machine may have considerably worse hardware specs than the iMac), and would not take off like you infer. You say people buy Macs for the OS, but that a Windows Mac would make Apple the biggest hardware vendor in the world? Talk about destroying your own argument (and that's not to mention that, with the purchase of a copy of XP or Vista, Macs already essentially are more aesthetically pleasing Windows machines).

Don't confuse Jobs rhetoric -- which we all love -- for something it is not. At best, when being interviewed with Gates, he was describing their design philosophy; their approach. This is not the same as him explaining where their profits come from (make no mistake -- it is from the hardware with the enviable profit margins that all their money comes. Just as the iTunes Music Store exists to support iPod sales - they make next to nothing in music sales, and mounds of cash on iPod sales - so does OS X exist to support Mac hardware sales.

And to the other poster who had audio issues with his Intel Mac, and used that to buttress murphyweb's statements re: the banality of the Intel machines themselves -- you CLEARLY never tried to do any sort of serious audio work on one of the first few generations of G5 PowerMacs. Apple has always had little glitches pop up from time to time -- that's what happens when you push the envelope with design, create a new machine from the ground up (yes, even one built with third party components), and perhaps don't test as thoroughly as you should --- but these glitches are easy to look past if you happen to be one of the people who finds the Apple experience to be a truly pleasureable one.
post #46 of 84
Quote:
Don't confuse Jobs rhetoric -- which we all love -- for something it is not. At best, when being interviewed with Gates, he was describing their design philosophy; their approach. This is not the same as him explaining where their profits come from (make no mistake -- it is from the hardware with the enviable profit margins that all their money comes. Just as the iTunes Music Store exists to support iPod sales - they make next to nothing in music sales, and mounds of cash on iPod sales - so does OS X exist to support Mac hardware sales.

But this is exactly my point, you see an ipod sale as a hardware sale and therefore it goes into the hardware revenue box. What i am saying and what was at the root of Steve Jobs comment is the fact that an ipod sale is actually a software sale because an ipod is essentially a piece of software first and foremost, the lump of metal and chips it is running on is a side matter.

Quote:
Though I love your enthusiastic support of the platform, murphyweb, I really couldn't disagree more with your over-simplification of the situation. A HUGE number of computer users, sadly, buy merely based around price and what they are familiar with. This, along with bad experiences in the non-Jobsian era of Apple, is still a big barrier for many users that may otherwise switch. An iMac, seen by many of these people, would simply by a "more expensive computer" compared to the stripped down low-end Dell, etc., alternative (even though the Windows machine may have considerably worse hardware specs than the iMac), and would not take off like you infer. You say people buy Macs for the OS, but that a Windows Mac would make Apple the biggest hardware vendor in the world? Talk about destroying your own argument (and that's not to mention that, with the purchase of a copy of XP or Vista, Macs already essentially are more aesthetically pleasing Windows machines).

That is exactly the reason why an imac with windows pre-installed would be the fastest growing computer in history, because people want an mac because it is seen as more stylish and cool. But when it comes down to the purchasing decision people would buy the dell as money is a clear driver, so apple would have no choice but to compete with dell and match prices accordingly. Making Apple the company who sells more computers than anyone else but like everyone else makes little margin. This is exactly how Apple would look if it was a hardware manufacturer.

Anyone who owns a mac however knows what makes it different from PC's, it is the operating system, this is apples only real USP. OSX is so stable partly because Apple control exactly what hardware that it is deployed on, there are no third party drivers or hardware glitches that can crash the OS. But this does not make Apple's hardware any better than the competition, they source all major components from the same factories that are making parts for every other kind of computer but because they control the configuration of the hardware it is more stable. This why people pay a premium for a mac.

PC manufactures have upped their game and are producing more stylish cases now, there products are cheaper because they are in a highly competitive segment of the market. Apple however can still charge a premium because they have a USP that nobody else can deliver and that is OSX. So if Apple sell an iMac for $2000 you could say they made a $2000 hardware sale, but the truth is it was the software that made that sale possible, because if it ran windows they would not have sold it for more than say $1400.

So to say that Apple is a hardware vendor is an over-simplification of the situation, Apple clearly is not a hardware vendor. All of Apples products are software, and i do not mean software based, or software driven or even mean they have operating systems. I mean they are Software full stop. The iPhone is software, it maybe delivered on a hardware platform that has a mouthpiece and speaker and looks like a phone but it is actually a software product. Same goes for everything else, AppleTV is all software.

To put it simply buy a new iMac, format the drive and load Vista on it, what would you have?
You would an overpriced, underpowered but nice looking PC. Would you pay a premium for it? Of course you wouldn't. So saying i am over-simplifying the subject is not true because it is very simple.
post #47 of 84
Murphyweb, you present your argument very articulately and I concur with your views wholeheartedly. I have been in the computer industry (sales PC) since 1980. For me, I recognized this fact since the Apple Lisa and its suite of applications. The name escapes me right now, but it had seven or 7 in its name. It was price that stopped the LIsa back then, $10,000. Apples next $10,000 machine was a LaserWriter, chock full of Canon parts, but with Postscript. Although not strictly an Apple software development, Apple had a considerable financial interest in PostScript. It still demonstrates your view of software showing off its advantages through the hardware. How true it is, ALL of Apples offerings have Apple software DNA in it.

However, in accepting this, my view is that Apple will eventually take on Microsoft head on. When they do, it will be the holistic Apple approach that will win the day. It not really Apple "taking on" Microsoft, they just see that there has got to be a better way of doing this. Success means winning marketshare as a consequence of doing it better, and that share comes from somewhere.

However, I'm ranting.

I too believe Apple is working toward a critical mass of device coherency, that nobody else could/can cobble together. I also feel that Apple has learned well from their many misadventures, but you could see what they were trying to do (Newton, Pippin, Docking Mac). I have enjoyed the ride for the past 25 years with Apple, and look forward to what may come of the iPhone.

Todays forum topic has made for good reading. I also look forward to reading your future posts. You have a "melgross perception"

Good evening
post #48 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

Do you know if apple released an iMac tomorrow with Vista pre-installed it would be the fastest selling computer of all time?

No, it wouldn't be the fastest selling computer of all time. If it were, why wouldn't apple do it? Just so they don't have to make money? No, they don't do it because people, when looking at PCs, look at price and features as much as the mac-only importance of looks. PC makers sell more lower end computers then higher end ones. Users DON"T want all the crap that Apple insists on throwing into their computers. And most PC owners have monitors, and would balk at having to throw them out just to buy an iMac.

Plus, haven't you seen the apple commercials where they say you can run Windows on the mac. Yet, I don't see the imac being the bestest selling computer of all time. Is it just that user's are OK buying a computer, but installing an OS is beyond them?

Quote:
Do you know why? Because people would love an iMac, Mac's are cool, they have been since 1997, everyone wants one on there desk, but they are brainwashed into thinking they need windows and are too scared to spend money on something as strange to them as a Mac. If Apple really wanted to be the biggest hardware vendor in the world they could be tomorrow, just by pre-installing windows. And do you know what the biggest irony would be? That the only reason Mac's are so good is because they do not run Windows.

Sorry, you seem to be all over the place. One moment you say iMacs would sell record numbers if it ran Vista, but then that the only reason its good is because it doesn't run windows. I guess you're trying to make the point that OS X is the reason for the sales. But if that were the case, why would an iMac with Vista on it outsell all other computers?

Quote:
You really need to understand that there is no money in hardware sales, There are plenty of companies out there that sell much much more tin than Apple and are not worth a fraction of the value as Apple.

I'm sorry, again, you need to look at apple's financials. Apple has margins of 30% on its hardware. Do not say there's no money in hardware, since most of their revenues come from hardware sales, and most of their profit come from the margins on said hardware sales. Apple uses its software to sell hardware, not the other way around. If they wanted to be called a software company, then why are they ignoring 95% of the computer users out there by not making iLife and iWork for WIndows? Why can't you get OS X for Dells? Why not iPod OS for a Zen?

If there were no money in hardware sales, why wouldn't Apple get out of hardware sales and just license its OS and iPod software to other hardware makers? Why bother making an iPhone when they could make the OS and sell it to Nokia, Sony, etc?

And arguing that they're a software company because its the software the runs on the box, then that means every electronics company is a software vendor. Sony sells software, wrapped inside DVD players, TVs, receivers, etc. But no one argues that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

So the founder and CEO of a company says...

"If you look at the reason the iPod exists, it's because these really great Japanese consumer companies couldn't conceive of and implement the appropriate software. The iPod is in a beautiful box, but it's software. If you look at what a Mac is, it's OS X, in a beautiful box. So the big secret about Apple is that Apple views itself as a software company. And there aren't many software companies left."

So are we saying that if you took the iPod interface and put it on a Zune, the Zune would sell through the roof? Unfortunaltely, you can argue all you want about software vs hardware, but let's be truthful here. The iPod, and the iPhone soon enough, are fad/trend/status items. People want an iPod because its an iPod.

And he's on stage with the MS guy, so of course he wants to argue he's a software company. But you don't think that if it were him and mikey dell, he wouldn't be talking up his hardware?
post #49 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

fine, the iphone isn't a smart phone. it's a phone that can do 90% of the things a smart phone can do, but you're forced to make your programs in a manner that's STABLE, ohh, and it all fits inside your ipod... and it's actually easy to use. the first time i picked up a pearl it took me 10 minutes to give my buddy my contact info.

It drives me nuts when people suck into Jobs' RDF and don't realize the crap that he spreads. There is nothing inheritenly stable about web apps, nor unstable about standard apps. It all depends on how stable the underlying software is. If Webkit or the kernel or other pieces has issues with some javascript that causes the phone to crash, then using a web app can cause the phone to crash. And if OS X is so stable for an OS that the above is unlikely, how can you argue, then, that installing a standard app can crash the phone? And, then, why do people not care about such things not scream that OS X.5 should remove all application capabilities and just allow web apps as well, because, apparently, the OS is so unstable our laptops will crash left and right otherwise (and between the two, I could live without my phone for a day, I couldn't live without my laptop, as its what all my work is actually done on).
post #50 of 84
WM has nothing to worry about from the iPhone that's being released on the 29th. Why do you think WM will suffer. I think Apple is in for a surprise after the initial sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Good point. If Chnagewave is fairly correct—and I think they are—it will be Windows Mobile that will suffer the most hit in overall marketshare from the upcoming Cupertino device.

What's the big frickin concern that 3rd party apps would make the phones crash. Well, no shit, a badly writting 3rd party app can make any OS crash. Have some faith in the developers. I loads all types of programs on my WM smartphone, and it has yet to crash. Surly a OS built around OSX is more stable that a OS built around Windows......right?!?!
post #51 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer View Post


If there were no money in hardware sales, why wouldn't Apple get out of hardware sales and just license its OS and iPod software to other hardware makers? Why bother making an iPhone when they could make the OS and sell it to Nokia, Sony, etc?

And arguing that they're a software company because its the software the runs on the box, then that means every electronics company is a software vendor. Sony sells software, wrapped inside DVD players, TVs, receivers, etc. But no one argues that.


You have hit the nail on the head. The only other factual item that you did not mention that incontrovertibly proves this point is Apple's clone disaster.

When Apple allowed companies to build systems and license Mac OS it nearly put Apple under for good. I know that the clone makers actually brought better machines to market and released them quicker than Apple did. Even with that being said, if Apple were a software company the clone manufacturers would not have brought Apple to the brink, it would have pushed them to the domination of the computing world.
post #52 of 84
Maybe it's just me but....

Why are so many people of the mindset that... No, the iPhone will never have 3rd party applications , period, end of sentence.

I just don't see the basis for this line of thinking... and unless I missed something I don't **think** Steve ever made such a claim. He did say that no SDK would be available (give us time he said) and then at WWDC he did say that developers can use Safari to develop iPhone apps and then they wouldn't need an SDK but none of that adds up to NO 3rd PARTY APPS EVER!

Was it said that NO SDK would ever come?

Was it said that Safari apps would be the only solution ever?

Was it sad that Apple would have ZERO (back-room) deals with 3rd party developers to create new software for the iPhone similar to what we see with the iPod? Unless I'm mistaken an iPod SDK still doesn't exist and yet we still have 3rd party apps.

All I'm saying is I think people are taking this line of 'NO 3RD PARTY APPS' thinking far too absolute/permanent.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #53 of 84
12345
post #54 of 84
Thats fine i have no problem with people not agreeing with me, i would suggest however that you have failed to understand my point or even read my posts correctly.

Quote:
Plus, haven't you seen the apple commercials where they say you can run Windows on the mac. Yet, I don't see the imac being the bestest selling computer of all time. Is it just that user's are OK buying a computer, but installing an OS is beyond them?

You miss the point here totally, you cannot buy a mac without OSX, if you put windows on your mac after the fact then Apple have still sold you an OSX license whether you use it or not and yes of course installing an OS is beyond the vast majority of computer users, in fact most computer uses do not even understand what an OS is! You ask people what computer they use and how many times would the answer be "windows"? And this brings me on to...

Quote:
Sorry, you seem to be all over the place. One moment you say iMacs would sell record numbers if it ran Vista, but then that the only reason its good is because it doesn't run windows. I guess you're trying to make the point that OS X is the reason for the sales. But if that were the case, why would an iMac with Vista on it outsell all other computers

This should be very obvious, iMacs shipped with vista would sell record numbers because Apple is a cool brand and people would love to buy Apple PC's if they were as cheap as Dell and HP PC's and sold in their local high street stores. And they would be as cheap because Apple would then be a hardware manufacturer and with no other USP apart from a sexy case they would need to dig in and compete with the other PC Manufacturers. Most 'average' computer users do not buy Mac's, they are expensive and people do not understand them because they are not windows. But the people that do buy them buy them because the operating system is much better than windows and due to Apples control over what hardware their software runs on is much more stable. Windows have taken a giant march on Apple and it will take time to change the perception, but things like the ipod and iphone will dramatically turn things around for Apple Macs, they will gain more market share because they now have a large customer base of Apple consumers who will begin to look at macs as a future computer purchases and with education will understand the benefits of OSX. Hence why the Apple shops.

The actual computers that Apple sell are no better in terms of specifications and quality than any PC costing 50% cheaper. And now they use Intel processors i am not sure there is any difference at all.

So the whole point of my argument still stacks up, Apple are not a hardware vendor because if they were then they would sell Apple PC's because it is PC's that sell to the masses and that is where Apples market would be. The fact that Apple only sell computers running their own OS regardless of their tiny market share tells me that they are primarily a software company and a bloody good one at that. They can make large profits on their computers because they have such a strong USP in OSX, they would not get away with it otherwise. Don't think for a minute that Apple make such great margins because they have better hardware than anyone else, it is plainly not true.

Quote:
So are we saying that if you took the iPod interface and put it on a Zune, the Zune would sell through the roof? Unfortunaltely, you can argue all you want about software vs hardware, but let's be truthful here. The iPod, and the iPhone soon enough, are fad/trend/status items. People want an iPod because its an iPod.

No, don;t fall into the trap of the lazy press, the buying public out there are not stupid enough to buy something in millions based on hype and marketing alone. Plenty of shit products have bit the dust despite a multi million dollar marketing budget. The iPod became a hit because it is a great product due to brilliant easy to use software and user interface. Yes the marketing was spot on but there had to be a great product to back it up. And yes if the Zune came out first with the same software it would have been a hit too.

Quote:
If there were no money in hardware sales, why wouldn't Apple get out of hardware sales and just license its OS and iPod software to other hardware makers? Why bother making an iPhone when they could make the OS and sell it to Nokia, Sony, etc?

There is very little margin in hardware sales, that is a fact of business. Services and software make money for vendors not hardware. Apple make money out of the deal because they get sell there product for higher margin precisely because of OSX, Apples entire business plan has revolved around keeping a tight control over what hardware their software is deployed on. This is the biggest reason they their OS is so stable and therefore so highly regarded that users will pay a premium to have it. Licensing OSX to another manufacturer both devalues their core product and could create negativity around the product if it is not as stable running on an open architecture.

Quote:
If they wanted to be called a software company, then why are they ignoring 95% of the computer users out there by not making iLife and iWork for WIndows? Why can't you get OS X for Dells? Why not iPod OS for a Zen?

Like i originally said, Safari could be the start of something.


Right i am finished with this, like i said you can disagree but i think i know what i am talking about and i believe in the software. This post originally started by my thinking about an Apple assault on the enterprise software market and i still think this is a highly likely move on their part. Obviously not many believe that because Apple are not a software company and are just a hardware vendor, thats fine but when it happens you may remember this conversation.

Good day to you.

Petermac, cheers for your support, we appear to live in the same town, G'Day!!
post #55 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xool View Post

As a developer I can say that I'd prefer "real" apps for iPhone, but I do understand the security/stability concerns. However, web apps can be very powerful and the key limitations are more faced on desktops than mobile devices (no drag and drop between apps or windows).

The iPhone's always active connectivity and interactive UI is remarkable. Knowing where web technologies are going (integrated DB in the Browser, for example) this device truly is revolutionary.

For business apps, I'll say sure. But what if I want to, say, make the iPhone into a new type of controller for a video game? How do I do that within a web browser? That's an example of the interesting type of application which will make the iPhone's unique technology exciting.

For example, one of my favorite apps for my current cell phone (Sony Ericsson Z600) is Salling Clicker. I highly doubt it'd be possible to do that within a web app.

Sorry, but web application development doesn't interest me in the slightest. Contrary to what Steve says, I rarely launch Dashboard for anything (I launch it more times by accident). And about the only web app I use on a regular basis is Google maps (and I check the weather, but that's not really an app). I have a feeling it'll be same when I get an iPhone.

Which is fine -- that's exactly what I'm expecting to be able to do with the iPhone -- make calls, listen to music, take pictures, check/send email, text message, store my contact info and schedule, and get directions when I'm lost. But it's nice to discover those extra little things you can do with a phone (and especially the unique technology of the iPhone) which you didn't think of when you first bought it. It's what really makes a device something personal.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #56 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

No, don;t fall into the trap of the lazy press, the buying public out there are not stupid enough to buy something in millions based on hype and marketing alone. Plenty of shit products have bit the dust despite a multi million dollar marketing budget. The iPod became a hit because it is a great product due to brilliant easy to use software and user interface. Yes the marketing was spot on but there had to be a great product to back it up. And yes if the Zune came out first with the same software it would have been a hit too.

But you didn't answer my question. If the Zune were to have the iPod OS, would it be a hit? Not if it came out before, but right now. Would people flock to it just as much, because the OS is the same, so its the same device?

Quote:
There is very little margin in hardware sales, that is a fact of business.

OK, I understand you're whole "Well, I know I'm right, the rest of the world is wrong" feeling, but did you not follow the simple point that Apple's margins on their hardware is 30%. That's not a little, that's not thin. That's a boatload of cash, as in "For every mac sold, they garner a 30% profit". So don't tell me there's no margins in hardware.

Oh, right, I forgot, that whole 30% is all because of the OS, so it doesn't count.
post #57 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer View Post

Oh, right, I forgot, that whole 30% is all because of the OS, so it doesn't count.

He's assuming that the $150, or so, profit that Apple makes on the low end Mac Book, all comes from the included OS and iLife software, and that people are only buying the machine because of that software.

While people do buy the machine because of the OS to the greatest extent, his error is in assuming that the OEM price that Apple's software division charges the hardware division (probably around $50) doesn't exist, and that the price is actually $129, almost all profit.

Even if that were true, and it isn't, he doesn't realise that Apple doesn't make the hardware to sell the software, but the other way around, and that over half the people I know who have bought a Mac for the first time didn't even know that iLife was included when they bought the machine, which means, so much for that argument.
post #58 of 84
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsvisser View Post

.... this does not at all mean that the iPhone cannot capture a segment of the smart phone market, because many of the smart phone users do not need to install applications, but mainly use it for messaging, contact management, scheduling, etc.... which are all capable features that should be built into the iPhone as part of its core functionality ....

****Warning**** Anecdotal Data Alert

At the present time, I personally know 11 CrackBerry users, all businessmen. By most definitions, each is using a "Smart" phone.

I asked them what they liked best about their drug? Answer (11/11)--Push email, Push email,,Push email, text messaging, text messaging, text messaging, can't live without it.

I asked them what Apps they used mostly on their "Smart" CrackBerrys. Answer--email, contacts DB, scheduling.

I asked them about other Apps like word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, games, other, that they used on their "Smart" CrackBerrys . Answer--You're kidding right? I don't care about that stuff. Who wants to do spreadsheets on a cellphone? Duh? Web browsing? It sucks right now. Too slow, too hard to see the pages, etc.

I asked them why they chose a CrackBerry over Nokia or others. Answer--Many of their colleagues were CrackBerry users, ease of thumb typing text to respond quickly to emails, ease of getting push email via their large metropolitan area network providers.

Did i mention that they like push email and text messaging on their Smart" CrackBerrys?

IMO, the Smart in Smart Phone is irrelevant. What's important is one small feature that can make a product "Tip" or become wildly popular (See Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book "The Tipping Point"). In RIMM's case, what made the Blackberry system enormously popular was push email/easy text messaging. All the rest is superfluous. If the iPhone system can make Web browsing an easy, really doable functional experience on a mobile phone, it will "Tip". It may also "Tip" for other reasons e.g. its coolness factor and/or Ipod functionality or other unique function. Whether it is Smart or not, is irrelevant.
post #59 of 84
This has been (for the most part) an enjoyable thread to read on how people feel about the two primary discussions (though the software/hardware business debate is rather off topic).

For the software/hardware debate. Something to ponder... Is Dell a hardware company company? They are not an ODM, so they don't make their own hardware. There are truly very few ODMs... and even fewer who are present in the retail channel.

Concerning software add-ons/installs for the iPhone. It was actually specifically spelled out a few times in very public places by Apple that there will be further Software added to the phone in the future. The exclusion of direct 3rd party developer involvement via a SDK is rather disappointing... and if Apple was more serious about the web space being a true alternative, then flash would be supported so we could use it for offline purposes.

In the end, the early adopters (which I hope to be since I am moving back to the States on the 5th ) should only purchase the device based upon what it is now.

However... I will always be keeping a great amount of hope out that the device will also eventually include solid SIP abilities so I can integrate the device with my office... oh joy.
post #60 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post

[

****Warning**** Anecdotal Data Alert

At the present time, I personally know 11 CrackBerry users, all businessmen. By most definitions, each is using a "Smart" phone.

I asked them what they liked best about their drug? Answer (11/11)--Push email, Push email,,Push email, text messaging, text messaging, text messaging, can't live without it.

I asked them what Apps they used mostly on their "Smart" CrackBerrys. Answer--email, contacts DB, scheduling.

I asked them about other Apps like word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, games, other, that they used on their "Smart" CrackBerrys . Answer--You're kidding right? I don't care about that stuff. Who wants to do spreadsheets on a cellphone? Duh? Web browsing? It sucks right now. Too slow, too hard to see the pages, etc.

I asked them why they chose a CrackBerry over Nokia or others. Answer--Many of their colleagues were CrackBerry users, ease of thumb typing text to respond quickly to emails, ease of getting push email via their large metropolitan area network providers.

Did i mention that they like push email and text messaging on their Smart" CrackBerrys?

IMO, the Smart in Smart Phone is irrelevant. What's important is one small feature that can make a product "Tip" or become wildly popular (See Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book "The Tipping Point"). In RIMM's case, what made the Blackberry system enormously popular was push email/easy text messaging. All the rest is superfluous. If the iPhone system can make Web browsing an easy, really doable functional experience on a mobile phone, it will "Tip". It may also "Tip" for other reasons e.g. its coolness factor and/or Ipod functionality or other unique function. Whether it is Smart or not, is irrelevant.

I agree that, for now, the iPhone is irrelevant for most business users. But, I know a number of business users that have Treo's, and a couple with Windows Mobile models as well.
post #61 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post

[

****Warning**** Anecdotal Data Alert

At the present time, I personally know 11 CrackBerry users, all businessmen. By most definitions, each is using a "Smart" phone.

I asked them what they liked best about their drug? Answer (11/11)--Push email, Push email,,Push email, text messaging, text messaging, text messaging, can't live without it.

I asked them what Apps they used mostly on their "Smart" CrackBerrys. Answer--email, contacts DB, scheduling.

I asked them about other Apps like word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, games, other, that they used on their "Smart" CrackBerrys . Answer--You're kidding right? I don't care about that stuff. Who wants to do spreadsheets on a cellphone? Duh? Web browsing? It sucks right now. Too slow, too hard to see the pages, etc.

I asked them why they chose a CrackBerry over Nokia or others. Answer--Many of their colleagues were CrackBerry users, ease of thumb typing text to respond quickly to emails, ease of getting push email via their large metropolitan area network providers.

Did i mention that they like push email and text messaging on their Smart" CrackBerrys?

IMO, the Smart in Smart Phone is irrelevant. What's important is one small feature that can make a product "Tip" or become wildly popular (See Malcolm Gladwell's brilliant book "The Tipping Point"). In RIMM's case, what made the Blackberry system enormously popular was push email/easy text messaging. All the rest is superfluous. If the iPhone system can make Web browsing an easy, really doable functional experience on a mobile phone, it will "Tip". It may also "Tip" for other reasons e.g. its coolness factor and/or Ipod functionality or other unique function. Whether it is Smart or not, is irrelevant.


They must not get text messages with photo's from other phones then because that doesn't work on a Crack berry. Push email. I am not sure why this feature ranks king among my kind. Why not just have the phone check every few minutes like a COMPUTER.

Not check the web? What kind of business are they in? Highschool? I check stock quotes currently quite a bit. Google Apps (company calendar mainly) would be sweet!!! iPhone all the way...

Crackberry addict here...
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #62 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I agree that, for now, the iPhone is irrelevant for most business users. But, I know a number of business users that have Treo's, and a couple with Windows Mobile models as well.

Do they use all their Smart Phone capabilities? That was my point about the Blackberry addicts in my very small sample. The are only interested in a very limited subset of its features.

The Palm Treo is actually a great example of a very smart phone with many Apps that never "tipped" like the Blackberry. Palm is biding time right now waiting and hoping to be acquired by someone, any one. RIMM on the other hand is a mega success story with a devoted following and Stock that approaches AAPL for stardom and $$$.
post #63 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post

Do they use all their Smart Phone capabilities? That was my point about the Blackberry addicts in my very small sample. The are only interested in a very limited subset of its features.

That's a real good question.

We have had an argument here about just what constitutes a smartphone.

If they only use the e-mail feature, do they need a "real" smartphone at all?

I use every function of my Treo EXCEPT the email.

From what I know about those people I mentioned, it varies. Some use only e-mail, others use more functions. Appointments and scheduling seems to the other big app.

Memos to themselves about something seems to be another important function.

After that?
post #64 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

They must not get text messages with photo's from other phones then because that doesn't work on a Crack berry. Push email. I am not sure why this feature ranks king among my kind. Why not just have the phone check every few minutes like a COMPUTER.

Not check the web? What kind of business are they in? Highschool? I check stock quotes currently quite a bit. Google Apps (company calendar mainly) would be sweet!!! iPhone all the way...

Crackberry addict here...

The guys are text and numbers guys in my very small sample--Business people constantly making deals, checking on messages and figures from a client or the office (I met them via my Fantasy Football leagues). When I have lunch with them, they check their Blackberry every 30 seconds, give or take, for new emails. They're like chain smokers. I didn't say they didn't check the web--they just said it was not that easy given the current system to browse and read web pages on their smart phones. I didn't ask, but should have, if they at least looked at a stock ticker. The point of my post was not that the iPhone won't be a good businessman's phone--it might be. I cited 11 busines s guys who had smartphones but only cared mainly about one feature, push email /text only messaging--other advanced smart phone features were irrelevant to this group.As with any anecdotal info and small group sizes, they may not be representative of the population. However, if you're ever down on Wall Street at lunch time, watch the boys and girls as they scurry off to lunch. They "chain smoke" constantly.

IMO, what "tipped" the Blackberry into the wildly popular device it is today, was its push email system. I'm hoping the iPhone has A function or functions which which will "tip" it in the business world (easy functional web browsing?) and in the consumer world (coolness, Ipod, other).

As a Crackberry addict, why don't you tell us what advanced smart phone features/Apps you currently use?
post #65 of 84
I use a Blackberry for work and only ever use it for emails and making calls, Nothing else. I can see web based location services useful if i could ever be bothered to give them ago. When arriving in a new city i guess local directions and maps being good. As it stands i cannot see the iPhone making a good business device but it is not unforeseeable that Apple will have at least 2-3 models of iphone next year and i guess one of them would be a business device.

I work for a software company and our product is an office communications platform with real time presence that integrates with Microsoft Exchange, next month we will be putting our client on Blackberry's and Windows Mobile, i obviously will be running our app then and this is certainly something that the likes of Microsoft, Cisco, IBM and co are all looking at doing. If Apple release a business class device then 3rd party apps is something that they are going to have to support from day one.

I think the Blackberry tipping point may well have been push email but the keyboard was certainly a factor, i love my blackberry keyboard for emails and sms but as well as the best feature of my blackberry it is also the worst as it makes it a dog of a phone to carry around. If the iPhone touchscreen keyboard works as well as Steve Jobs say it does then a business device with that technology could well be a Blackberry rival.
post #66 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

I use a Blackberry for work and only ever use it for emails and making calls, Nothing else. I can see web based location services useful if i could ever be bothered to give them ago. When arriving in a new city i guess local directions and maps being good. As it stands i cannot see the iPhone making a good business device but it is not unforeseeable that Apple will have at least 2-3 models of iphone next year and i guess one of them would be a business device.

I work for a software company and our product is an office communications platform with real time presence that integrates with Microsoft Exchange, next month we will be putting our client on Blackberry's and Windows Mobile, i obviously will be running our app then and this is certainly something that the likes of Microsoft, Cisco, IBM and co are all looking at doing. If Apple release a business class device then 3rd party apps is something that they are going to have to support from day one.

I think the Blackberry tipping point may well have been push email but the keyboard was certainly a factor, i love my blackberry keyboard for emails and sms but as well as the best feature of my blackberry it is also the worst as it makes it a dog of a phone to carry around. If the iPhone touchscreen keyboard works as well as Steve Jobs say it does then a business device with that technology could well be a Blackberry rival.

Good post for this Apple-centric board. LOL, I used one from my guys to make a call and it was like holding a small plate to my ear.

Good luck with your App.
post #67 of 84
Here's a good review of the new Blackberry 8800, the main competition the iPhone will face if it is ever going to make a dent in the business world. The 8800 is RIM's attempt at sleek and cool packaging of its push email drug.

It's useful to see what features this Smartphone has and compare it to those of the iPhone. While Apple is going to target consumers at first, if it is ever going to "tip" Crackberry businessmen addicts into iPhone addicts, this unit is the one it has to eventually compete with.

http://www.geardigest.com/2007/06/06...erry_8800_now/
post #68 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post

The guys are text and numbers guys in my very small sample--Business people constantly making deals, checking on messages and figures from a client or the office (I met them via my Fantasy Football leagues). When I have lunch with them, they check their Blackberry every 30 seconds, give or take, for new emails. They're like chain smokers. I didn't say they didn't check the web--they just said it was not that easy given the current system to browse and read web pages on their smart phones. I didn't ask, but should have, if they at least looked at a stock ticker. The point of my post was not that the iPhone won't be a good businessman's phone--it might be. I cited 11 busines s guys who had smartphones but only cared mainly about one feature, push email /text only messaging--other advanced smart phone features were irrelevant to this group.As with any anecdotal info and small group sizes, they may not be representative of the population. However, if you're ever down on Wall Street at lunch time, watch the boys and girls as they scurry off to lunch. They "chain smoke" constantly.

IMO, what "tipped" the Blackberry into the wildly popular device it is today, was its push email system. I'm hoping the iPhone has A function or functions which which will "tip" it in the business world (easy functional web browsing?) and in the consumer world (coolness, Ipod, other).

As a Crackberry addict, why don't you tell us what advanced smart phone features/Apps you currently use?


I use my BlackBerry 8703e for email, text messaging, quick web browsing for stock quotes, weather, and sports scores. Past that, I do not use the Blackberry for anything else other than calling. Now, I sync my phone via PocketMac for Blackberry. It is a work phone for my buissness. We have ~55+ employee's and 5 of us carry BlackBerry's. If you can store files on a Blackberry 8703e from Verizon, I can't do it and don't care too because while being the badest phone around, after seeing the iPhone it might as well have a rotary dial on it now.

My brother and I will be upgrading to the iPhone because of better sync tech, better calendar, better Mac integration, better WEB BROWSER that can be used to actually look something up, better calling features as three way, swapping back and forth, not having a thumb wheel to wear out. I was hoping for PDF viewer on the iPhone too.

One thing I can say is I have dropped my Blackberry more than I care to count and it is still going. The 8703e is my third one. I generally get a new release model once every 12 - 18 months depending on features and/or accidents (dropping my first Blackberry in a puddle of water getting out of the car : ).

The iPhone will dominate and Push email is way overrated. While I don't have a problem with Push email, nor do I constantly check my phone for email unless I am bored at which point on the iPhone I can listen to music, watch a video, or actually surf the web via WAN or wifi.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I use my BlackBerry 8703e for email, text messaging, quick web browsing for stock quotes, weather, and sports scores. Past that, I do not use the Blackberry for anything else other than calling. Now, I sync my phone via PocketMac for Blackberry. It is a work phone for my buissness. We have ~55+ employee's and 5 of us carry BlackBerry's. If you can store files on a Blackberry 8703e from Verizon, I can't do it and don't care too because while being the badest phone around, after seeing the iPhone it might as well have a rotary dial on it now.

My brother and I will be upgrading to the iPhone because of better sync tech, better calendar, better Mac integration, better WEB BROWSER that can be used to actually look something up, better calling features as three way, swapping back and forth, not having a thumb wheel to wear out. I was hoping for PDF viewer on the iPhone too.

One thing I can say is I have dropped my Blackberry more than I care to count and it is still going. The 8703e is my third one. I generally get a new release model once every 12 - 18 months depending on features and/or accidents (dropping my first Blackberry in a puddle of water getting out of the car : ).

The iPhone will dominate and Push email is way overrated. While I don't have a problem with Push email, nor do I constantly check my phone for email unless I am bored at which point on the iPhone I can listen to music, watch a video, or actually surf the web via WAN or wifi.

Thanks for the response aplnub. I'll be right behind you in line to buy my iPhone. IYO, push email is "way over rated" but it is the drug which has the RIM masses addicted.

For the folks on this board who have no frame of reference, could you please describe your Web experience with your Blackberrys? For example, ease of connection, speed, surfability, ease of seeing the print on web pages, etc. Thanks.
post #70 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post

Thanks for the response aplnub. I'll be right behind you in line to buy my iPhone. IYO, push email is "way over rated" but it is the drug which has the RIM masses addicted.

For the folks on this board who have no frame of reference, could you please describe your Web experience with your Blackberrys? For example, ease of connection, speed, surfability, ease of seeing the print on web pages, etc. Thanks.

The Blackberry has a web browser but not like a computer. The server, i.e. I assume the phone company or RIM, take the web page data and rearrange it so the the Blackberry can view it. Viewing this forums and normal websites sucks! For instance, if you look on the left at my username, it shows up inline (top to bottom) with the postings and is meshed together with all the other stuff. You can only scroll vertical so they have to format the page to be just that, skinny and vertical.

On a Verizon 1X connection, browsing is slow for most normal websites. Evolution speeds are NOT that much better either. It takes a 48 seconds to pull up this thread (that was after I had already pulled it up first thing this morning). I feel this is because of the reformating of the page data so the black berry goes at it backwards since it lets the server do the formatting and not the phone.

The screen size was nice and big until the iPhone hit the scene. Landscape mode will be awesome.

However, email delivery (sending and receiving) is near instant. I recommend the email for doing email contest like on Fox and Friends in the morning. Once it's gone, it is delivered.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

The Blackberry has a web browser but not like a computer. The server, i.e. I assume the phone company or RIM, take the web page data and rearrange it so the the Blackberry can view it. Viewing this forums and normal websites sucks! For instance, if you look on the left at my username, it shows up inline (top to bottom) with the postings and is meshed together with all the other stuff. You can only scroll vertical so they have to format the page to be just that, skinny and vertical.

On a Verizon 1X connection, browsing is slow for most normal websites. Evolution speeds are NOT that much better either. It takes a 48 seconds to pull up this thread (that was after I had already pulled it up first thing this morning). I feel this is because of the reformating of the page data so the black berry goes at it backwards since it lets the server do the formatting and not the phone.

The screen size was nice and big until the iPhone hit the scene. Landscape mode will be awesome.

However, email delivery (sending and receiving) is near instant. I recommend the email for doing email contest like on Fox and Friends in the morning. Once it's gone, it is delivered.

Thanks. You just described my limited poor web experiences with Smartphones. That's why I keep saying that if the widescreen/landscape iPhone system can deliver a superior web browsing experince, it will be the killer App or "Tipping Point" for a mobile phone. Combine that with at least acceptable typing on the virtual keyboard plus push email, and you have a mega success. Whether it's a "Smartphone" by today's standards is irrelevant.
post #72 of 84
Quote:
You just described my limited poor web experiences with Smartphones. That's why I keep saying that if the widescreen/landscape iPhone system can deliver a superior web browsing experince, it will be the killer App or "Tipping Point" for a mobile phone. Combine that with at least acceptable typing on the virtual keyboard plus push email, and you have a mega success. Whether it's a "Smartphone" by today's standards is irrelevant.

I think what you are describing would be a killer phone for general use, The lack of 3G support is a strange one and i would imagine is one the reasons why Apple are reported to be struggling to find a UK carrier. GPRS does not deliver a decent enough web browsing experience so to pitch the phone as a web device but then to not support the fastest mobile data speeds leaves the iPhone wanting somewhat, i appreciate things maybe different in the sates, how fast is Edge? Though wifi is a great thing to have and if you lived in a city where there was blanket wifi coverage then the lack of 3G would certainly not be as important.

What you described however is certainly not enough to market this is as a business phone ala Blackberry, acceptable typing would not be acceptable for a device that you may possibly send 20-30 emails a day from, you need much better than acceptable, hence why the blackberry is so popular. I am not even sure the bigger screen would make a difference, business users are not really interested in a browser, the whole point of a Blackberry is to keep in touch while on the move, i can't think where i would get the chance to browse the web while out and about let alone why i would want to.

So for a personal phone for those people who want more from a phone than just calls and sms i think the iPhone is going to take some beating, but to talk about the iPhone as a Blackberry rival i think is premature, no matter how cool the iPhone seems to be and no matter how much i may want one i cannot see myself swapping a Blackberry for one unless the keyboard is as easy to type on as Blackberry and the email worked as well and could sync properly with Exchange.
post #73 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

I think what you are describing would be a killer phone for general use, The lack of 3G support is a strange one and i would imagine is one the reasons why Apple are reported to be struggling to find a UK carrier. GPRS does not deliver a decent enough web browsing experience so to pitch the phone as a web device but then to not support the fastest mobile data speeds leaves the iPhone wanting somewhat, i appreciate things maybe different in the sates, how fast is Edge? Though wifi is a great thing to have and if you lived in a city where there was blanket wifi coverage then the lack of 3G would certainly not be as important.

What you described however is certainly not enough to market this is as a business phone ala Blackberry, acceptable typing would not be acceptable for a device that you may possibly send 20-30 emails a day from, you need much better than acceptable, hence why the blackberry is so popular. I am not even sure the bigger screen would make a difference, business users are not really interested in a browser, the whole point of a Blackberry is to keep in touch while on the move, i can't think where i would get the chance to browse the web while out and about let alone why i would want to.

So for a personal phone for those people who want more from a phone than just calls and sms i think the iPhone is going to take some beating, but to talk about the iPhone as a Blackberry rival i think is premature, no matter how cool the iPhone seems to be and no matter how much i may want one i cannot see myself swapping a Blackberry for one unless the keyboard is as easy to type on as Blackberry and the email worked as well and could sync properly with Exchange.

All very fair, legitimate points Murphy. However, one thing we see increasing daily in the business world is use of the web as a vehicle for conducting business. See the dramatic rise of Salesforce.com for example and their competitors in this arena including such giants as IBM , SAP, Oracle and British Telecom. Furthermore, individual companies (like some Pharma companies I consult for) are increasing their use of secure encrypted web sites as a portal for getting, manipulating and leaving company based business data and strategic information. Nonetheless, I strongly agree with you that the Blackberry will be a formidable rival for the iPhone system for some time because of its firmly entrenched push email system and the ease of thumb typing on its models. In the early years of the iPhone, I don't think AAPL expects much penetration into the business market anyway--RIMM is just too strong. However, RIMM'S competitors in this area, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony/Ericsson and the soon to be defunct Palm are all at risk for market share from AAPL despite how "Smart" their phones are. In the business world, it's not about "Smart" in the phone. RIMM has shown that one small but very key functionality is all it takes to dominate the market.
post #74 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post

All very fair, legitimate points Murphy. However, one thing we see increasing daily in the business world is use of the web as a vehicle for conducting business. See the dramatic rise of Salesforce.com for example and their competitors in this arena including such giants as IBM , SAP, Oracle and British Telecom. Furthermore, individual companies (like some Pharma companies I consult for) are increasing their use of secure encrypted web sites as a portal for getting, manipulating and leaving company based business data and strategic information. Nonetheless, I strongly agree with you that the Blackberry will be a formidable rival for the iPhone system for some time because of its firmly entrenched push email system and the ease of thumb typing on its models. In the early years of the iPhone, I don't think AAPL expects much penetration into the business market anyway--RIMM is just too strong. However, RIMM'S competitors in this area, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony/Ericsson and the soon to be defunct Palm are all at risk for market share from AAPL despite how "Smart" their phones are. In the business world, it's not about "Smart" in the phone. RIMM has shown that one small but very key functionality is all it takes to dominate the market.

What I find to be interesting about where RIM is going with the Blackberry is that as they try to make their models more popular with more than their "traditional" business customers, they are making them less easy to use.

A case in point. The standard Blackberry had been the horizontal wide spaced key model. That was pretty much all they offered as far as egronomics went. That was (and is) GREAT for typing.

Then they realised that sales were being limited by that rather clumsy shape.

They went to narrowed vertical models in addition.

But, when trying out my wifes model 8700, I found the keyboard to be not much easier to use for the double thumb approach than my Treo 700p, wheras, older models were much easier to type with.

Looking at even newer models, such as the Pearl, it can't be done at all, in any friendly way. Such models as the 7100 series are just as bad. The 8300 Curve, though it does have the full keyboard, is too narrow altogether.

It looks as though RIM will be forgoing most of the ease of use for wider sales.

But, that pits them directly against other companies, including Apple.

While RIM has push mail, a feature that seems to be no more useful than your browser simply going to the server and getting it at any interval you specify, the secure nature of it is what makes the difference.

Apple will have push as well, but, it's from Yahoo, and it's not as secure as RIMs'. If Apple did offer push that was secure, then that might be a different story.

This has all of RIM's models:

http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/manufacturer.php?m=28
post #75 of 84
Agree on all, Mel. In trying to get sleeker and cooler, RIMM went backwards. The security aspect of the BB email system is paramount/non-negotiable for business use and a big hurdle if AAPL is ever going to crack that market
post #76 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

While RIM has push mail, a feature that seems to be no more useful than your browser simply going to the server and getting it at any interval you specify, the secure nature of it is what makes the difference.

Apple will have push as well, but, it's from Yahoo, and it's not as secure as RIMs'. If Apple did offer push that was secure, then that might be a different story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post

Agree on all, Mel. In trying to get sleeker and cooler, RIMM went backwards. The security aspect of the BB email system is paramount/non-negotiable for business use and a big hurdle if AAPL is ever going to crack that market

How is RIM's security better? Does it merely offer encrypted email access like with Gmail?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #77 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How is RIM's security better? Does it merely offer encrypted email access like with Gmail?

To be honest, I don't remember how it's done. I had read about it at some point, but don't remember now.
post #78 of 84
post #79 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Here's a few articles that Forbes has sent me today.

Remember, this is just from todayso far.

[removed links]



Nice articles from Forbes. Those clearly state the iPhone will not be just for Apple "fanboys" or "techno-geeks," but for a much broader market. I predict 1M units sold within the first 3 weeks.

I also predict that Apple nor AT&T delay and secrecy with their iPhone service plans is to create more positive buzz the day before the launch. I suspect that the rates will be lower than most comparable plans, not higher. I suspect this is one of the main reasonsbesides the control Apple wanted to havewhy Verzion past on the opportunity.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #80 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How is RIM's security better? Does it merely offer encrypted email access like with Gmail?

Here's a nice brief overview of BB security implemented thru its Enterprise Server (BES).

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/ataglan...y/features.jsp
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple iPhone may capture 26 percent of smartphone buyers - report