Originally Posted by solipsism
That isn't true. The argument was that AT&T didn't have the infrasturcture to support wide-area 3G, the way the CMDA carriers do, so why bother adding a costly component that drains battery life, takes up space and benefits very few customers? AT&T seems to be adding 3G coverage at break-neck speeds... at least here in Florida.
Yeah, I know... in fact, I was making that particular argument before almost anybody here. The argument was to take EDGE over 3G because EDGE, while damn slow, was nearly everywhere. ATT's 3G coverage was poor. So let's benefit the majority.
However, shortly after making that argument, I realized that 3G and EDGE was not an 'either/or' situation. Phones like the Samsung Blackjack had chipsets in them that could support both HSDPA(3G) and
EDGE. So, it was possible to benefit both the majority AND the minority.
And as you yourself note, ATT is building out its 3G network quite rapidly. It's still nowhere near EVDO's 3G coverage, but it's getting almost respectable now. So it's worth supporting.
Far as 'costly' goes, 3G radio chips aren't expensive, really. Even some entry-level cell phones have 'em now.
Flash looks like a no go. What is the point of running Flash-Lite so you can drain you battery faster. Adobe needs to get Flash 9 (or 10) and create a hardware accelerator chip if the really want to keep with this new trend created by iPhone/iPod Touch.
I have a feeling we'll be seeing Flash support sooner rather than later. For good or ill, the user's web experience is just too dependent on Flash these days to ignore it.
I think Apple planned the 3G as a later development all along, after all, they were with AT&T's poor 3G coverage.
Yes, and I was one of the ones who had to run around reminding all the ' who needs 3G' RDFers that Jobs had indeed promised 3G on the iPhone at some date.
The problem was that while simultaneously promising 3G, Jobs also had to downplay 3G, since he could not offer it in iPhone 1.0. Many folks here swallowed the PR kool-aid a bit too hard and mistakenly thought that no 3G was no big deal, and that it could be back-burnered for a couple of years. Obviously, no way.
Plus, this allows for even more people to buy new iPhones. Not a bad marketing plan. New features in October; 3G in November.
LOL. Given recent events (i.e. the Great iPhone Rebellion of '07), one has to question that, and wonder just how warmly an iPhone 2.0 showing up just 4-5 months after launch will be received by some.
Don't get me wrong, I'd
like to see it, and I think Apple being aggressive here is necessary to ensure their success in what is likely going to be a tough market, most especially in Europe and Asia. But it'll be interesting to see how many people cry that their 2.5G iPhones are now 'bricks' just a few months after launch.
But will the phone be heavier and thicker to account for the larger chips and much needed battery size improvement?
We'll see. Back then, Electric Monk had the 411 on some new chips that should minimize those problems.
I rally hope the don't add traditional GPS services. If I need to know my exact location in the jungles of the Congo I'll be using a standalone GPS system and a sat phone, not my iPhone.
Many users don't agree with you on that. On high-end phones, they expect GPS, and real-time location-based services.
I do see Apple as having one huge failure--at least for Apple--when tey introduced the 4GB model. If they started with a 8.16GB mode perhaps things would have been different, but thr 4GB model was certainly a poor judgment on Apple's part.
It doesn't seem to have been terribly damaging for them. In fact, it's kinda nice that you can pick one up for $299 now, since it's being EOL'd (assuming that you're ok with having an iPhone 1.0).