or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone the No. 4 U.S. handset during third quarter
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPhone the No. 4 U.S. handset during third quarter - Page 2

post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_lha View Post

"We" do use it in the UK, maybe you don't, but people around my way do. I expect its a regional thing, and your ranting about it rather deflects from the cutting point of your main rant (i.e. iPhone's lack of standard features)..

Hardly a rant - I even footnoted it. I've not heard it outside of more rural southern England, and usually only older locals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project2501 View Post

That's the problem with US based phone company, US mobile phone networks are so deprived, that they don't even see half of the potential mobile phone features.

It'll be interesting to see where the iPhone UI goes. If they are going to add more features for Europe that we're accustomed to here, the interface will have to get more complex. It's simplicity and elegance just now is because it's missing features and to some extent they've over simplified it. eg. no cut and paste.

Of course they may just decide to permanently not implement some features to keep the iPhone simple and elegant, but then many people will just see that as limiting and buy something else.
post #42 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

It'll be interesting to see where the iPhone UI goes. If they are going to add more features for Europe that we're accustomed to here, the interface will have to get more complex. It's simplicity and elegance just now is because it's missing features and to some extent they've over simplified it. eg. no cut and paste.

Of course they may just decide to permanently not implement some features to keep the iPhone simple and elegant, but then many people will just see that as limiting and buy something else.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Apple has stated that they are only expecting 10% of the smartphone market. That means that they don't have to be something to everyone.

I do think that a much larger percentage of that market will be interested once this SDK comes into being, along with 3G. But, even then, we really DON"T want Apple to attempt an appeal to everyone. That will just water it down. Despite what you say, there is more than enough market for this phone for the Nokia big shot to have proclaimed, the other day, that he was "paranoid" about it. That's a much stronger statement for one in his position than I would ever have expected, and must have been a slip. But, it does indicate that he feels that more people than you think, may be interested in this.

If Apple followed your policy with OS X for computers, we would be running Apple's version of Windows, instead of the one we have now, because it would follow your philosophy of Apple copying what most people are using, and THINK they need, when perhaps, they don't.
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If Apple followed your policy with OS X for computers, we would be running Apple's version of Windows

'Nuff said.

post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Currently, the top selling handset in the U.S. continues to be Motorolas RAZR V3, however it appears to be losing momentum as new and more competitive models that erode both its share and popularity are being introduced

I think that says it all. Do you really expect anything difference when such an outdated and ancient phone is the best selling phone currently? Its only the best selling phone because in the states you dont get half as many god phones as you get in Europe.

Heck I think you only just got the N95 recently? Where as in Europe we now have the 8gb version.
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by bavlondon2 View Post

I think that says it all. Do you really expect anything difference when such an outdated and ancient phone is the best selling phone currently? Its only the best selling phone because in the states you dont get half as many god phones as you get in Europe.

Heck I think you only just got the N95 recently? Where as in Europe we now have the 8gb version.

It's really because most people here don't care much about their phone. Because of that, newer phones MAY take longer to arrive, esp. the higher end models, if they are other than Blackberry, Win Mobile, Palm, and now the iPhone. The distribution of manufacturers are different here than they are in Europe.

The N95 hasn't received many good reviews here, for example. It often seems that the phones most liked in Europe are most disliked here, and visa versa.

I'm very interested in what happens to the iPhone sales across the areas in Europe where it will be sold.

Several members of AI are staking their reputations as experts in the phone field with their predictions that the iPhone will do poorly because of what they delight in assuming are inferior performance and features.

With the January announcement of Apple's sales figures, we will see if that's true or not. I don't think that Europe's phone users are any more sophisticated than the users here. They certainly don't seem to be willing to pay for all of these services the companies offer. Availability does not prove usage.

If the iPhone sells well, and it doesn't have to be a mob arousing situation to do so, then that may show that some of the features of other phones are not as important as has been thought by a few here.
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's really because most people here don't care much about their phone. Because of that, newer phones MAY take longer to arrive, esp. the higher end models, if they are other than Blackberry, Win Mobile, Palm, and now the iPhone. The distribution of manufacturers are different here than they are in Europe.

The N95 hasn't received many good reviews here, for example. It often seems that the phones most liked in Europe are most disliked here, and visa versa.

I'm very interested in what happens to the iPhone sales across the areas in Europe where it will be sold.

Several members of AI are staking their reputations as experts in the phone field with their predictions that the iPhone will do poorly because of what they delight in assuming are inferior performance and features.

With the January announcement of Apple's sales figures, we will see if that's true or not. I don't think that Europe's phone users are any more sophisticated than the users here. They certainly don't seem to be willing to pay for all of these services the companies offer. Availability does not prove usage.

If the iPhone sells well, and it doesn't have to be a mob arousing situation to do so, then that may show that some of the features of other phones are not as important as has been thought by a few here.

In Europe the market is very saturated. People know what they want. In terms of phones they want 5MP, WIFI, 3G/HSDPA and good media capabilties. In terms of pricing they want lots of minutes, textx and now more want data allowances. The iphone tarrif for theUK is ok but could be better. Infact thats being too generous. For £35 i get 600 xnet minutes, 400 textx and unlimited data anytime.

For 35 on the iphonr tarrif you only get not even half the number minutes and texts so it remains to be seen how well it does.
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by bavlondon2 View Post

Heck I think you only just got the N95 recently? Where as in Europe we now have the 8gb version.

So, do you own one? Or know anyone that owns one?

Also, I've asked this before of people who think all this supposedly great stuff that is available in Europe is so cool: Can you point to any sales or market share or adoption data to let us know if consumers actually buy this stuff? Or is it just ad-ware? For instance, I can point to hard data that says that over a million iPhones were sold in the US in the first 90 days. Also, I speculate that Apple could sell upwards of 2.5 million phones before the end of the 2007 calendar year.
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by bavlondon2 View Post

In Europe the market is very saturated. People know what they want. In terms of phones they want 5MP, WIFI, 3G/HSDPA and good media capabilties.

I am willing to believe you, but can we have some data, please?

Otherwise I am afraid you are just blowing smoke: You think they "know" and you think "they want......."

post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Apple has stated that they are only expecting 10% of the smartphone market. That means that they don't have to be something to everyone.

My point about things we expect in Europe was more about standard features every phone has so it really is about being something to everyone. Everyone expects 3G, MMS, a decent camera, video and bluetooth transfer in a high end phone here. I can't see how they can't add that as well as the interface changes needed to support those features.

I generally love Apple's 'less is more' approach but only to an extent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If Apple followed your policy with OS X for computers, we would be running Apple's version of Windows, instead of the one we have now, because it would follow your philosophy of Apple copying what most people are using, and THINK they need, when perhaps, they don't.

You misunderstood. I'm looking at Apple to make the features people actually use more accessible like they've done with voicemail.

IMHO they didn't go far enough in the iPhone as you've still got separate apps for sms, email and voicemail when they should just have one messaging interface. Add MMS in to that and file transfers. Oddly, that's what my ancient SE p910i does already - all messages of all types are in one app, except for voicemail. Visual Voicemail was genius.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Also, I've asked this before of people who think all this supposedly great stuff that is available in Europe is so cool: Can you point to any sales or market share or adoption data to let us know if consumers actually buy this stuff? Or is it just ad-ware? For instance, I can point to hard data that says that over a million iPhones were sold in the US in the first 90 days. Also, I speculate that Apple could sell upwards of 2.5 million phones before the end of the 2007 calendar year.

I cobbled together a figure of 3.85 million N95 sales since March in this thread from Nokia's financial results...

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...8&postcount=41

Of course it's just one of at least a dozen phones available that you could compare to the iPhone as a smartphone or media phone. Maybe more but I tend to lump the HTC rebadges in as one horrible turd mass.

You can get W850 Walkman phones for about £50 here now without a contract on PAYG. They're about 18 months old in the market and I'd guess due to be made obsolete by a new model. I know three twelve year olds that are getting them for Christmas or better even. 2mp camera, video, bluetooth and up to 4GB of ram - perfect for kids. The iPhone specs are worse than that and my 12 year old hated trying to type on the iPod Touch and switches off the T9 in her current phone as it stops her using TXT speak (sigh). She also thought it was too big.
post #50 of 65
Quote:
IMHO they didn't go far enough in the iPhone as you've still got separate apps for sms, email and voicemail when they should just have one messaging interface. Add MMS in to that and file transfers. Oddly, that's what my ancient SE p910i does already - all messages of all types are in one app, except for voicemail. Visual Voicemail was genius.

This is consistent with what Apple does. Windows lumps many functions into one app.

Windows Media Player plays audio, video, and DVD all in one app. While Apple has Quicktime, iTunes, and a separate DVD Player app.
post #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This is consistent with what Apple does. Windows lumps many functions into one app.

Windows Media Player plays audio, video, and DVD all in one app. While Apple has Quicktime, iTunes, and a separate DVD Player app.

Is there really a net positive benefit to one approach over the other?

I think maybe Apple has to split the functionality a bit, because I don't think they can include DVD playback with iTunes for Windows without paying a license fee.

It would be nice if all three unified on more things, such as the keystroke needed to play full screen.
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Is there really a net positive benefit to one approach over the other?

I'm sure there a pros and cons to both ways. I was pointing out that Apple generally splits functions into different apps.

I'm sure placing too many functions into one app makes it challenging to add to one function without detracting from another.

Quicktime, iTunes, and DVD Player are all media players, but their development paths, purposes, and user functionality have all gone in different directions from one another.
post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This is consistent with what Apple does. Windows lumps many functions into one app.

Ahem...

Apple lumps in RSS, Email, ToDo, Notes and Appointments in Mail in Leopard. A step which I think is retrogressive. But I get your point. That WAS true of Apple.

My point is that messaging is really one function regardless of the transport used so they could have used one Inbox, not many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Windows Media Player plays audio, video, and DVD all in one app. While Apple has Quicktime, iTunes, and a separate DVD Player app.

Three apps where one would do. We've got three quite different interfaces to play media. Four if you count Front Row.

'Consistent' is not a word that Apple are familiar with these days.
post #54 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

My point about things we expect in Europe was more about standard features every phone has so it really is about being something to everyone. Everyone expects 3G, MMS, a decent camera, video and bluetooth transfer in a high end phone here. I can't see how they can't add that as well as the interface changes needed to support those features.

You're saying then, that every cell user in Europe has a 3G phone, video and Bluetooth, as well as all of these other features. That's pretty hard to believe.

Quote:
IMHO they didn't go far enough in the iPhone as you've still got separate apps for sms, email and voicemail when they should just have one messaging interface. Add MMS in to that and file transfers. Oddly, that's what my ancient SE p910i does already - all messages of all types are in one app, except for voicemail. Visual Voicemail was genius.

If you've read all the negative comments here about Apple putting several communication features in the new Mail app, you'll see why what they do in Europe isn't universally admired. Many people don't want all of this in one app. It's a matter of philosophy. It's neither better nor worse.
post #55 of 65
Quote:
Apple lumps in RSS, Email, ToDo, Notes and Appointments in Mail in Leopard.

Do all of these functions need their own apps?

Quote:
Three apps where one would do. We've got three quite different interfaces to play media. Four if you count Front Row.

They all play media but over all they perform different functions.

Quicktime itself is the basis for Apple's media playback and content creation. Its best if that carries as little extra baggage as necessary. Quicktime requires a simple interface for media playback.

iTunes primary job is the acquisition, organization, and storage of large quantities of media files. Also to sync media and information to the iPod and iPhone. iTunes requires an interface suitable for managing large numbers of audio and video files. iTunes could playback DVD, but the way it is currently designed is not the best interface for navigating DVD menus.

Which is why there is a dedicated DVD player. It avoids other apps carrying around the luggage of DVD playback software. The players interface can be dedicated to the DVD style of menus and controls, without having to compromise with the interface of another app that has an entirely different purpose.

Front Row isn't so much an entirely different app but more a front end interface to easily use all of OS X media apps on your television. You have the option to use it or not.
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You're saying then, that every cell user in Europe has a 3G phone, video and Bluetooth, as well as all of these other features. That's pretty hard to believe.

Apart from 3G, yes, at least in the UK. I don't know anyone without them. Even the crappy phone you get on supermarket checkouts that you pick up as an afterthought for £30 without a contract have them.

But we're talking about new high end phones like the iPhone not £30 supermarket phones.



Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If you've read all the negative comments here about Apple putting several communication features in the new Mail app, you'll see why what they do in Europe isn't universally admired. Many people don't want all of this in one app. It's a matter of philosophy. It's neither better nor worse.

I wouldn't say it's a particularly European trait. Looks straight out of Redmond IMHO. I'm firmly in the worse camp although I'm sure I'll use the todo feature - pity they don't sync to the iPhone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Do all of these functions need their own apps?

They all play media but over all they perform different functions.

Quicktime itself is the basis for Apple's media playback and content creation. Its best if that carries as little extra baggage as necessary. Quicktime requires a simple interface for media playback.

iTunes primary job is the acquisition, organization, and storage of large quantities of media files. Also to sync media and information to the iPod and iPhone. iTunes requires an interface suitable for managing large numbers of audio and video files. iTunes could playback DVD, but the way it is currently designed is not the best interface for navigating DVD menus.

Which is why there is a dedicated DVD player. It avoids other apps carrying around the luggage of DVD playback software. The players interface can be dedicated to the DVD style of menus and controls, without having to compromise with the interface of another app that has an entirely different purpose.

Front Row isn't so much an entirely different app but more a front end interface to easily use all of OS X media apps on your television. You have the option to use it or not.

Sure, you can explain all that if you're a geek but it's coming from a technical background, not a functional one. There's no functional difference as far as a user is concerned with playing a movie from a DVD or from a hard disk - they're just watching a movie - why should the interface be different?

Equally from my technical background, I can't see why Quicktime Player couldn't also be the DVD player - the interfaces are minimally different and you could easily have interface 'modes' depending on context. I don't see why iTunes doesn't open video in a Quicktime Player window, giving you better control than the pitiful controls you have in iTunes. And I don't see why iTunes is used to sync iPods (and now iPhones but not other people's phones) instead of iSync.

Oh and now we've QuickLook. SIX interfaces to media files.

Oh and also the media inspector in iLife/iWork Cocoa apps, but not iTunes. SEVEN.

It's not about baggage - I think there would actually be less if Apple rewrote iTunes and updated Quicktime to use the newer technology they're using in the rest of the OS. Roll on iTunes8 and Quicktime8.

To me it just smacks of departments within Apple all protecting their pie instead of someone sitting back and working out a consistent media interface.

Anyway, going off topic, I was just hoping with a 1.0 product like the iPhone they'd have the opportunity to rethink a bit harder than they already did. Maybe merging mail and SMS would be just too weird for some people although they did make SMS more like iChat, which may yet confuse people when iChat on the iPhone actually appears.
post #57 of 65
Quote:
There's no functional difference as far as a user is concerned with playing a movie from a DVD or from a hard disk - they're just watching a movie - why should the interface be different?

Because there is a specific menu and control system for DVD that is different from watching Quicktime movies or streaming video from the web.

As is shown here, DVD Player 5.0

Adding DVD Player into Quicktime adds software that would mostly go unused but has to be carried around as QT is used in iLife, iWork, Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere, FCP, Logic, ProTools, Avid. And any other QT media based software.

Quote:
Oh and now we've QuickLook. SIX interfaces to media files.

Quicklook isn't a new interface, its simply a Quicktime viewer without opening the app.

Quote:
Oh and also the media inspector in iLife/iWork Cocoa apps, but not iTunes. SEVEN.

iLife and iWork are content creation apps that use QT as its media framework. iTunes is for media playback and storage. iTunes is not intended to be used to create or edit content so there is no need for a media inspector.

Quote:
To me it just smacks of departments within Apple all protecting their pie instead of someone sitting back and working out a consistent media interface.

I agree with Mel this a Apple's philosophy. Build different apps that do what they do well. It has its advantages and disadvantages.
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Because there is a specific menu and control system for DVD that is different from watching Quicktime movies or streaming video from the web.

As is shown here, DVD Player 5.0

Other than chapters, I don't see the difference at all. Forward, pause, play, back, stop - all the same functionality needed for a movie be it on a disc or a hard disc or the net. ie. all the buttons on an Apple remote.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Adding DVD Player into Quicktime adds software that would mostly go unused but has to be carried around as QT is used in iLife, iWork, Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere, FCP, Logic, ProTools, Avid. And any other QT media based software.

That isn't true. The player and the framework are separate. DVD Player sits on top of DVD Playback Services and then on top of Quicktime just as Quicktime Player sits on Quicktime does or iTunes does. iWork and iLife use Cocoa's QTKit, not the player. Adobe I've no idea.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Quicklook isn't a new interface, its simply a Quicktime viewer without opening the app.

It's not the same interface as Quicktime Player, even if it's using the Quicktime framework.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

iLife and iWork are content creation apps that use QT as its media framework. iTunes is for media playback and storage. iTunes is not intended to be used to create or edit content so there is no need for a media inspector.

Except for ringtones.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I agree with Mel this a Apple's philosophy. Build different apps that do what they do well. It has its advantages and disadvantages.

Except for Leopard's Mail.app, Safari, iTunes...

7 media viewers, 3 points for sync, 2 RSS readers, 2 todo list editors, 3? notes tools...

I really don't think Apple has a philosophy any more. Like they don't follow HIG anymore either. Lately they've been cramming more and more features into apps, often duplicating features that are done elsewhere. I don't think that's always a bad thing - breaking with dogma - but it can seem somewhat chaotic.
post #59 of 65
Quote:
Other than chapters, I don't see the difference at all. Forward, pause, play, back, stop - all the same functionality needed for a movie be it on a disc or a hard disc or the net. ie. all the buttons on an Apple remote.

Every media player has: Play, FF, RW, Stop. That doesn't mean they all perform the same function.

DVD also has chapters. Which requires an interface for easily displaying what chapter is currently being watched, how many chapter there are, and navigating those chapters. In DVD Player 5 Apple includes a drop down linear time bar across the top of the screen to allow visual navigation of the chapters.

But whatever, this going nowhere and we are just being argumentative. Plus Apple has a separate DVD Player and that's the way it is.
post #60 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Every media player has: Play, FF, RW, Stop. That doesn't mean they all perform the same function.

DVD also has chapters. Which requires an interface for easily displaying what chapter is currently being watched, how many chapter there are, and navigating those chapters. In DVD Player 5 Apple includes a drop down linear time bar across the top of the screen to allow visual navigation of the chapters.

Don't the iTunes video downloads offer chapters? I suppose they don't, I don't remember any on the few videos I've bought. I really don't think it makes sense to not have them, so the linear bar shouldn't need to be the special province of just one media type.

The thing that I don't get is that the stuff that's currently only commonly being done on DVD can be done with video files, but are not. Chapter marks, closed captions, subtitle tracks, multiple audio tracks are not some mystical concepts that can't or shouldn't be done in video files. I think it's pretty disappointing that this isn't more common.

Quote:
But whatever, this going nowhere and we are just being argumentative. Plus Apple has a separate DVD Player and that's the way it is.

I don't think anyone was contesting that fact. But that doesn't mean that the Apple way is ideal, and that's what we were discussing here. I still think the reasons for separation are more because of a certain kind of pragmatism and history, and not out of taking a good look at the functions from a broader view.
post #61 of 65
Just to add a counter example where Apple have gone in the right direction (IMHO). File sharing in Leopard.

Pre-Leopard you had 'Personal File Sharing' ie. AFP, 'Windows File Sharing' ie. SMB and FTP. Three options that essentially did the same thing, just using a different protocol. Now it's just 'File Sharing'. They hide the protocol details because it's not important to most people who just want to 'share a file'.

See http://db.tidbits.com/article/9261

(and they brought back OS9 style Folder level sharing - that's worth the upgrade alone for me)

That's what they should be doing with messaging on the iPhone. Simplifying.
post #62 of 65
Quote:
Chapter marks, closed captions, subtitle tracks, multiple audio tracks are not some mystical concepts that can't or shouldn't be done in video files. I think it's pretty disappointing that this isn't more common.

I see your point but I am sure they are trying to keep the file as small as possible.

Quote:
But that doesn't mean that the Apple way is ideal, and that's what we were discussing here. I still think the reasons for separation are more because of a certain kind of pragmatism and history, and not out of taking a good look at the functions from a broader view.

Well lets look at it this way. Who has created a better alternative? Windows Media Player does it all but I haven't seen or heard that it works any better than Apple's method. I'm not saying its worse either, but WMP cannot navigate DVD menus with the same sophistication of Apple's DVD Player.

I'm sure there are pros and cons to both ways as I've said.

Quote:
That's what they should be doing with messaging on the iPhone. Simplifying.

iChat does both IM and SMS so its very possible that they may do the same for the iPhone.
post #63 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I see your point but I am sure they are trying to keep the file as small as possible.

The only thing that changes the file size noticeably is additional audio tracks. iTunes' bit rate would basically mean about 21MB more for a 22 minute show, which on the file I checked, would be a 9% file size increase. Other than that, all the other features are negligible in terms of file size. Even DVD subs are only equivalent to adding a couple second's worth of video for every half hour. Chapter marks and CC would be a few k in size.
post #64 of 65
To find itself in 4th position at its price point is remarkable. Imagine what will happen when Apple goes down market with a iPhone nano. Apple's biggest problem continues to be its sole relationship with AT&T. The fact that 250,000 iPhone are sold but not activated on AT&T pretty much proves the point.

-
iPhone 8GB
MacBook 13" 2.16GHz Duo
Shuffle - 2nd gen
post #65 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by klime View Post

To find itself in 4th position at its price point is remarkable. Imagine what will happen when Apple goes down market with a iPhone nano.
-

I would love for Apple to come out with an "iPhone nano" but I just don't think it will happen anytime soon. The whole point to making the iPhone was to roll music and phone into one... if you remember... motorola tried this with their "iTunes phone" it was horrible. So in order for Apple to make an iPhone nano, I believe it would still need to have music on it. Unfortunately, I don't see them coming out with a 1 or 2 gig phone... call me crazy. But the whole concept behind the iPhone is that its a convergence device (it lumps together 2 or more devices).

Also, if an iPhone nano did come out I feel very strongly that it would be touch screen and nothing else. Apple hates keys. The touch screen is like their nirvana. I don't think they would regress and ship anything else. A little iPhone nano would be super cool though. Maybe in the next couple of years though... if anything were to make it possible, it would have to be something like this...

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscell.../10/ion_memory
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone the No. 4 U.S. handset during third quarter