Apple selects O2 as exclusive carrier for iPhone in UK - Page 3

I have actually been using visual voicemail on my blackberry for a year now and people i know use it on Windows smart phones. It of course it a great feature for business use hence why it has been popular in business for years. I am just not sold on it as a serious feature for normal users who maybe only get 1 or 2 voicemails a day, of course it is a blessing when you get 10-30 voicemails a day.

- 99% male? Check.
- 75% < 25? Check
- Hang out a lot wasting time in forums like these? Check ()
- Have any idea what an iPhone looks/feels like? Uncheck.
- Engadget trolls? (Probable) Check.
- Interested in iPhone? Who knows.

Also, there's likely a tremendous self-selection bias.

Just curious: How do you know? Have you used one a lot, or are you speculating?


You may have missed just about EVERYTHING about the targeting, segmenting, and positioning of this phone if you think that 4 & 5 are likely markets. Or even 3, for that matter. The iPhone is meant to be a better version of a "smart"phone. Smartphones are still a small market in Europe, but a growing one. So "2" is the only likely segment.

Apple's stated goal is to get 1% of the market share in the first year (or year and a half, whichever). Period. It is not to convert low-end mobile phone buyers whose main form of communication is SMS, MMS etc.

Honestly, no. If it'd been the jerk/poser crowd, or only Americans, I wouldn't have even brought them up.

If you read the comments, many seem to be from UKers who were honestly interested in the iPhone, knew about it, and were interested in a purchase. But were disappointed that all Steve served up was a warmed over 2.5G US iPhone.

Again, not really a stretch- Engadget was pretty much the place to be for live coverage.


.

lack of MMS will hurt the iphone in the UK more than the lack of 3g. MMS is huge here and buyers will expect it. you will see a lot of new users taking their back to the apple store and asking a 'genius' how to send a picture message...

Unfortunately, in the price segment the iPhone is competing in, most of the phones have 3G. \

Also 3G penetration rates are very uneven in Europe. Very low in places like Eastern Europe, but much higher in 'rich' Western European countries such as Italy.


.

I did read the comments. Carefully. Early this morning (east coast time), soon after the event. And, on a couple of other forums too. For instance, the tenor of comments in macrumors.com was not very different from those in engadget.com (you can easily check it, so I won't provide a link).

It sounded to me like a bunch of tech-y types who had hyperventilated themselves into a frenzy -- expecting 32GB (OK, 16GB) 3G phones that could sing and dance, and came with Beatles on iTunes and movie downloads in HD -- and felt deflated. Just as they should.

I stand by my comment that it is probably 99% male, and 75% < 25 (references to which you took out in your response). The larger point I am making is, forums like these and self-selected posters like you and I are not at all representative of the typical iPhone user or target segment.

Again, I'd disagree with you on both points. The Engadget commenters (who showed up for the live coverage) did not appear to be the usual crowd, and even if they were, geeky tech-interested Internet users do appear to be the iPhone's target demographic. I mean, if they're not, who is? Should Apple be advertising at bowling alleys?

I also don't get why you'd think they weren't interested in the iPhone. They obviously cared enough to comment on a UK iPhone event during or immediately after it happened. Doesn't sound like something Casual Carl would do.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

.

I have not missed anything, if you read my post again you will see that is exactly what i said, the problem is that in the smartphone market we both agree that the iPhone is playing to there are far better phones available at cheaper prices and they are 3G making it very hard for Apple to compete in. Try reading posts properly before replying to them.

The reason why smartphones are the growing segment is enterprise driven, it is business who are buying smartphones. The high end Windows mobile phones and Blackberrys are being bought on business accounts. So while it is easy to understand why Apple have decided to launch their first phone into the more profitable high end segment it seems really stupid to not sell them to businesses.

All i said was that Apple would have got to 1% market share much quicker had they decided to start at the bottom end of the market.

I have not used one, no. But i am not just speculating either, i am basing my knowledge purly on features / funcionality and price and 10 years experience of working in the telco and mobile communications industry in the UK. You do not need to use a phone to know whether its features and functions are suitable to the market it is being aimed at, this is what experience gives you.

I suggest to know little about the UK mobile market if you beleive that SMS and MMS are forms of communcation for low-end phone buyers only!

Everybody texts, i have only had business "smart phones" for years now and i text all the time, i text clients i text colleagues, i send far more texts that i send emails and text people more often that i call them. That is just the way it is and i am not alone.

You are basing that "far better" purely on hardware spec and not based on a comparison of someone who have used them to compare.

On a spec sheet a 5 mp camera looks a lot better than a 2 mp camera. But if that 5mp is comparatively more difficult to use, most people would be fine with the 2 mp that is comparatively easier to use.

Who cares if its higher resolution if you have to go through a bunch of submenus to take a quick shot with friends.

I think this consideration is being left out.

I know this is four in a row, pretty bad i guess, what is the record?

The problem is the marketing here, we seem to agree that the iPhone sits in the high-end smartphone catagory (well it does on price anyway) and i have no doubt it is a decent phone, i have never said anything different, but it is lacking some features that i think are important to the UK market but other people think is not so important because of the segment the iPhone is being targeted at.

The problem is that who are Apple marketing to? Not me, and i am the kind of consumer who buys expensive technology and smartphones, i have a Mac Book Pro, i have HDTV, Apple TV, Hi-Def HDD camcorder etc.. etc.. like most people on here i am a gadget freak. I am a businessman and i have disposable income and should sit nicely in the target area for Apple to sell me a phone.

But the iPhone is not being marketed at me!! It for some reason is being marketed at the cool crowd, its the best iPod in the world, is got cover-flow, its got visual voicemail etc..
But what people like me want from a smartphone is 3G, decent SMS capability and MMS for ourselves but as the chances are my employer will be paying for the phone they want secure email, integration with exchange and enterprise apps. So everyone says the iPhone is being targeted at the smartphone market, but is it really?? The marketing i have seen so far for the iPhone seems more aimed that the level 3-4 customer, i.e. mid range 2&3G phones buyers, the kind of people who do not buy smartphones but like taking pictures, texting and MMS'ing and are starting to buy 3G phones.

The iPhone really seems stuck between the two and does not seem to know where it fits, so we end up with an under-featured 2G smartphone or an expensive fun phone and i wonder how big that market actually is?

But that is not true, it depends on the phone. I have a year old Nokia here which is my "play" phone as i tend to leave my Blackberry in bars to often. When i want to take a pic i aim the camera and press the shutter, the SonyEriccsons do this as well.

Two clicks on a button and that photo is now in the inbox of a friend, you cannot get any simpler than that.

The picture was just an example. There are infinite others.

You are right it depends on the phone, and also true many phones are not easy to use. For most phones some functions are easy to get to while others are buried in sub-menus.

My point is that it cannot be a complete and fair comparison to look at a spec sheet to determine how good a phone is. One must actually use it and its functionality to determine which is better.

So when Steve Jobs declares it to be the best phone ever do you think he has used every other phone on the market just to be sure?

I can see where you are coming from, but the fact of the matter is we buy technology all the time without using it first. When you buy a phone you do not get a chance to try it out, you pick a phone purely on features/functionality and price as well as most importantly the perceived value for money you will get.

So comparing phones on functions and features is a fair thing to do, but you are right in what you say until you have lived with something for 6 months you cannot know for sure. After using the iPhone for 6months i might even declare it is the best phone ever, but that aint gonna happen because i will not be buying one becaue it does not pass the feature comparison test, Its a toughy!

Yeah, sure. Truly (honestly, I swear), no offense, but that just about says it all for me.

I think you don't quite understand because you have been in the industry for ten years, and you can't really see that your business model is being turned upside down. As far as the average user is concerned, your industry has been an arrogant disaster for many users, and Apple is upsetting that cart. I don't know whom in the industry you work for, but I am willing to bet it is not O2 or one of the other Apple partners such as Carphone Warehouse. (Btw, you must believe people like that in your industry are a bunch of idiots if your arguments are correct.)

Look, I am no prognosticator, but just an average user of (admittedly) some high-end technology. Having used it since Day 1 (and I am only speaking for myself), I have no doubt that this product will have much of your industry and its crappy business models on the run.

I think it will be a success in the UK in its current form. I say that as a user, not as an "industry insider."

Yes, but we don't have the sense of certitude about something we've never used as you seem to. Especially when there is substantial empirical evidence to the contrary, from the US introduction: notwithstanding the fact that it might be an atavistic market by European standards, the darn thing sold more than any other similar product introduced in history! (Even bested the iPod, by a huge margin).

I think you said you owned a Blackberry. Let me get this: You own one so that you can send send "more texts than emails?" Makes no sense to me!

Text was needed -- and emerged in common use in the 1990s -- because we all had sad little cellphones with 10 tiny number keys. As the use of smartphones becomes more widespread, texting will become completely obsolete and antiquated. MMS will follow.

OK, perhaps I am wrong after all, and you're right -- the iPhone will bomb in the UK because, according to you, users are still stuck in a form of communication from the dark ages of telecom.

One thing you may be missing is that the Euros don't text because they're stuck in the "dark ages of telecom", they text because voice minutes over there are a LOT more expensive than they are in the US in general. \

Texting in place of short calls actually saves them a lot of money, and the practice has taken on a sort of inertia over there... it's just what they do.

There'd have to be an incredibly compelling reason for them to all of a sudden drop SMS and MMS entirely for email.

.

I'm actually gonna agree with you for once, Teno... one of the two big trump cards for the iPhone is the fact that it takes smartphone functionality and makes it easy for Joe Average to use. And that's something that's not really quantifiable in a spec sheet.

Unfortunately, the other big trump card for the iPhone is it's awesome web browsing. Which, unfortunately, will be semi-hosed by O2's slow EDGE network, and severely hosed by O2's more common 30 kpbs GPRS coverage.

Anyone remember their old 28.8 modems? Augh.

.

Do you think maybe you need a new retailer? Both times that I bought a new phone, I tried it out first, making a call home or whatever, went through the menus and so on. The retailer had activated phones, ready to use. It's not really a total solution, it's unrealistic to try everything, but at least it's important to at least try it first before buying.

I think murph may be defining 'try it out' as actually being able to take it home first. Sure, you can play with phones in the store, but that doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know.

That's why things like the 30-day trial period are so important... you get to check out the network and the phone, to see if they're right for you. But that's the US, not sure what they let you do in the UK on that one.

.

Texting aint going anywhere for a while yet, it is the simplest and easiest way to send a short message to anyone. And yes when i use my Blackberry and i want to message another persons phone i always SMS rather than email, and that is how people message me too. That is just how it works. Most phones now have an email client, but people still text, why?

If something is simple, if it works then people will not change, why should they? email is not better at phone to phone messaging than SMS or MMS, that is a fact. It is nothing to do with the dark ages, SMS is simply better at doing the job. Apart from my business friends and clients i fo not have a single friend who has their email set up on their phone, they have no need to. So the only way i can message them is SMS, if i had an iPhone i would be unable to MMS them a picture i just took - that is a backward step not a forward step dude.

In fact whenever i hear that statement i have to remind people that SMS was developed after email was, so if anyting is the older technology it is email!! Every phone i have had in the last 5 years at least has had an email client but the first time i ever sent an email from a phone was when i got my Blackberry and i only do that when i need to send or reply to "real" emails to peoples PC's.

I know things are different in the US, but this debate is all about the suitability of the iPhone for the UK.

Let me make something clear, i no longer work in the mobile phone industry, i work in the Enterprise Communications industry now.

I would like to understand where this idea that Apple are upsetting the cart from? are you able to explain what Apple is actually doing to change the whole face of the mobile industry in Europe? And i really would like to understand the basis for your idea that the UK mobile industry has been am arrogant disaster? I cannot think of a single thing that would lead anyone to that conclusion.

Okay so the pricing models are sometimes unfair and expensive but that is the Governments fault, you see in 2000 when the 3G licences were auctioned off, the prices that the Government allowed the licences to sell for were astronomical, o2 paid $8 Billion dollars for theirs!! This money had to be got back somehow and the consumers are still paying for it.

So the difference is, under the traditional route you pick your phone, you sign up for a 12 or 18 month contract with the carrier of your choice ( 5 true national networks to choose from and countless virtuals - not bad for a little country ) and you walk away from the shop with a brand new high end handset and do not spend a bean. The cost of your handset is subsidised and you are stuck in a contract paying around 20-30 quid a month. But unlike the US, by law the networks must unlock your phone if asked and you can change networks if you want as long as the phone and contract is paid off.

But Apple have turned all that around have they? So what is different, of course, no subsidies, so you pay full price for your phone. But then that means you can have free choice over network? No of course not, you still have to sign up for a 18 month agreement with o2 !
So how is that so much better than before?

o2 are not the best network in the UK, they are not the biggest, they do not have the best coverage, why have Apple gone with them and not Orange or Vodafone?

Quote: o2 paid $8million dollars for theirs!!

That would be $8 billion (which I guess you meant).

It's just bizarre that O2 having invested so much in the 3G licence and the network infrastructure are having to spend more money to upgrade their 2G network for the iPhone. And presumably when they finally complete the upgrade and we get the dizzying EDGE data rates....the shiny new 3G iPhone2 will be out.

C.

It'd have to be a pretty rich parent to give them an iPhone on contract. Mine (11 and 12 year old) get a PAYG budget and once it's gone it's gone. I've seen them text through twenty quid in a day. They also go through phones at least every 6 months - smashed or just simply unfashionable.

They'll also be very miffed they can't shoot video, they can't 'bluetooth their friends' and they can't use any (annoying) song as a ringtone on an iPhone, which apart from texting seems to be the major use for a teenage girls phone.

I don't think it'll be selling to kids or if it does they'll very quickly go off it.

I think this is a big mistake from Apple to release it as it is. I mean after all that wait they are going to release the same one they had to put up with in the US? I dont think Jobs has researched the UK market at all. With the N5 8gb, F700, K850, W960 all round the corner, just how many of these does he expect to sell.

He should have been getting 3G in there as well as other things instead of looking for what network will make him the most money.

Thats why he needed the O2 guy to talk it up for him yesterday as he knows people in the UK arnt dumb and the iphone isnt going to sell itslef like it did in the US. They arnt going to go aout and commit to an 18 month contract with such little minutes and texts with a phone like this. Bad move MR Jobs.

Care to cite where you got those figures?

The GSM Association reckon there are nearly 800 million GSM phone users in Europe. It unfortunately doesn't break it down to 3G users in Europe.

http://www.gsmworld.com/news/statist...tats_q1_07.pdf

heehee, yeh was $8 billion, bit of a difference there ;-)

I'm unsurprised by the lack of 3G. Furthermore, I couldn't care less, I think the Wi-Fi hotspots deal makes up for it as best they could - it seems o2 were constrained by Apple's inability (refusal) to get out a 3G iPhone.

What is amazing to me is the poor text/minutes provision for the price. Okay, so unlimited data is great, but it doesn't make up for the fact that I NEED to send text messages to people who don't have unlimited data in order to message through email. The minutes seem pretty lousy too, unless they give you the o2 "long weekend" unlimited weekends in there too.

It's the price plans and minutes, (yes, I know the data is great) that make this a probable no-no for me, unless o2 are willing to buy out my existing contract or something.

The november 9th release date is interesting too, I'm almost sure Apple is predicting some sort of hardware/price change by then; it seems a hell of a long time to wait. Surely distribution and preparation, even in all the carphone warehouse stores, wouldn't take nearly two months? There must be a pretty good reason why they're shortening the holiday shopping season window for iPhone sales..

I couldn't agree more! Having just looked at the O2 store, they are offering a SIM ONLY (and lets face it, the iPhone is not subsidised by contract so this is equivalent to buying an iPhone & O2 sim) for £15 / month that has 200 mins + 400 text.

This means the "unlimited data" bit of the iPhone is costing £20 / month and that's not taking into account 200 less text messages. I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing something completely obvious, that is an utter rip-off. Look at the other operators internet bundles - Vodafone £7.50 / month, T-Mobile web & walk I think is also £7.50 (correct me if I'm wrong!) so why on earth would an iPhone user have to pay almost 3 times as much???

PLUS The SIM at £15 / month has NO lengthy contract (although I can't see on the site how long the minimum period is, it's certainly not 18 months).

Much as I'd like one and can put up with a few limitations this just makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm in the market for a new (UK) phone now. Have been with Orange for 3 years and always been very happy with them. Currently have a SE K800i which is fine but the joystick is inevitably beginning to become a problem. I'd have liked Apple to do a deal with Orange, but I don't mind O2. They're the only UK service provider, of the big 4, I've not used and I'd only have been really turned off by Vodafone who I found dreadful.

BUT. I went to the Regent Street store today and tried the iPod touch. I liked it and it made me a little more certain that the technology in the iPhone was good and useful and something I'd like to use. However, my music collection (with podcasts - which I really like to ahve with me) is 14GB. Why have Apple not updated the iPhone to the 16GB of the iPod touch? It seems like a no brainer. 3G doesn't bother me too much. I live in London and imagine that if and when I do want to surf the web I'll be near a hotspot anyway. But why no 16GB model? You canc learly pack it into the case - see the iPod. It just amkes no sense. I could buy the iPhone now and not get all my music library and podcasts on it opr wait until version 2 and pack it all on. But I just can't understand why Apple had left it when the means are there already.

Worried about upsetting the early US adopters further?

You know what forget it im going to get an iphone. Ill just have to trust that im near a hotspot when im out and about and if not well the edge is free so it will do. Yay!!!!!!!

This has beaten to death and yet it still doesn't seem to be common knowledge.

You can use the iPhone in US on AT&T's network and NOT sign a contract. No dirty hacks forced. No skullduggery needed.

3G.co.uk


I don't think that question will upset anyone. The only way to know the answer for sure is to sit in Apple's boardroom while they discuss future development of the iPhone.

My speculation is that its business strategy. It costs Apple less to ship 8GB than 16GB. If people are buying the 8 then there is little need to rush to sell 16. In the near future with hardware updates Apple will be able to reenergize sales with an update to 16.

It's 30 days in advance to cancel. ie. you pay £15 a month and you may end up paying for 2 months maximum if you cancel.

O2's data plans were always expensive. See http://www.o2.co.uk/mobilestariffs/t...umerdatabolton

Their Business data was pretty bad too.

So, £20 a month I suppose isn't too bad for O2 but as you noted, it's almost three times more expensive than the more competitive carriers like t-mobile.

Interesting. There's a couple of differences in stats there.

Firstly Europe isn't just the EU as far as the GSM Association is concerned in their stats. It's also true that some countries aren't as far down the path as others for 3G adoption. Italy is noted as 20% adoption.

It's also a year old data from Oct 2006.

I also wonder how much of the smartphone market isn't on 3G yet?

Hmmm..... considering the population of ALL of Europe is 700 million or so, how can they have 800 million GSM users?!