Originally Posted by THT
So, would you call the "N96" a N95 2.0? Or is it really just the N95-5? What would constitute a revised iPhone, the iPhone 2.0? And do other phone lines have the same revision cycle?
Well, considering that you somehow forgot to include the part of my quote where I said the N96 was a minor revision to the N95, I think you got the answer to the first of your questions already.
And in an earlier post I already stated that the iPhone 2.0 = the 3G iPhone, period. So you've already been answered there as well.
Do other phone lines have the same revision cycle? If by that you mean that all phones should be held to the same standard as far as what constitutes a minor or major revision, I would agree with that.
So, what's the contention? If the iPhone gets an HSPA revision in the Summer, that makes essentially 3 minor revisions within a year in your parlance. We can argue that it isn't the case if Apple doesn't come out with a revised iPhone by Summer, but the odds are pretty good they will.
There's no contention, I was simply agreeing with other folks who stated that model revisions occur frequently in the cell phone market. They do. But I wouldn't call an HSDPA (3G) revision to the iPhone "minor" by any means, as you do above.
The iPhone storage revisions? They're certainly minor, as nothing else was changed.
Just ignore that part of the sentence.
I do agree they have to execute. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
Yup. But no amount of execution gets them 10 million iPhone sales in the US alone in '08, however. To meet their goal, they're going to have to get significant sales in Europe and Asia. And I think they can, unless they are very slow on getting a 3G iPhone out and/or are incredibly inflexible on pricing.
It's the features that one values most. There's always tradeoffs in what a product will have. You want a camera phone. I don't think Apple intends the iPhone to be a camera phone. Maybe they will, but obviously not today.
Actually, the iPhone is already
a camera phone, since it has a camera. I guess you mean a phone with a good
camera... for a phone. And yes, I think that would help, considering that at the iPhone's high price point, ppl might reasonably expect something like a good camera, plus video capture, a flash, autofocus, etc.
Far as Apple's intentions go, perhaps you are right, and Apple thought it could skate by with the current camera specs. But, what does that prove? Apple also thought it could skate by in Europe with 2.5G and high pricing and do fine. But that hasn't really worked out too well.
I'm fairly confident that price or cost of ownership is more than half the battle, otherwise cheap cell phones and basic service wouldn't constitute the vast majority of what people have.
Cost of ownership is
important, but only if your feature set isn't a deal-breaker to begin with. Apple could lower the price of the iPhone considerably, but if they keep it at 2.5G, it still won't sell well in Europe. Not to mention Japan and Korea, where they're launching later this year.
So, if I'm looking for multimedia phone and I see the iPhone's 3.5" screen and compared to the N95-3/4's 2.8" screen or the Viewty's 3" screen, I'm calling the latter 2 losers.
I think there are a lot of ppl whose buying decision was influenced by the iPhone having a very large screen. And frankly, I'm surprised Apple hasn't made more hay about it in its ads... they seem to think that simply showing the screen is enough, even though showing it side by side
with its competitors screens would be quite a coup.
But I guess Apple feels that showing its competitors at all in the commercials would be doing its competition a favor.
If I'm looking for a camera phone, well, it's obvious one should choose one of the latter 2. Does Apple have to compete and try to get camera phone customers? No.
Apple doesn't have
to do anything, but if they want to sell more iPhones, and I think they do, they do have to worry about how the iPhone looks versus its competition.
I'm perfectly fine with it.
I'm happy to hear that. But I'm not worried about you, as you are not the market.
The key is what does the majority of consumers want; or what does the target market want and can they sell enough. The cellphone market is big enough to support gigantic submarkets, so I don't think it is a huge issue for Apple not to have a featuritis phone.
I don't think the iPhone needs to have every single possible cellphone feature under the sun... if I did, I'd be saying, "Where's the FM radio? Where's the flashlight?". But I'm not saying that.
What I am saying is that it's logical to be at least on par (or close) with your competition in the features that a significant chunk of the high-end cellphone market actually cares about. 3G would be one of those features. MMS? Yes, ppl expect it. A camera with good specs, video recording, flash, autofocus? At this (high) pricepoint... yep.
You may not see it that way, and I respect your opinion. But frankly, I think Apple was a bit surprised at the iPhone's fairly poor reception in Europe, and is now realizing what it really takes to compete there (not to mention Asia). Thus, I think we will see some significant spec bumps and feature adds to the iPhone's camera/video capabilities in the 3G iPhone... not to mention elsewhere.
And if they do that, it will simply be a wise competitive move, not 'featuritis'. But if you see FM radio capability or a flashlight on the 3G iPhone, then
you can call featuritis. And I will join you.