Originally Posted by sapporobaby
Your post was equally as well stated. The thing is, I never said the iPhone was crap. It is far from it. It is however not the revolutionary device (my opinion) that many here (some of them blind followers) think. It is an evolutionary device. It was the logical next step. It builds a stable bridge from the desktop to a mobile device, and it does it well. Nokia products, are designed to be an extension of your office in your pocket. They perform this function quite well also. The iPhone and the Nokia devices are simply not comparable in my view as they serve different functions. I would not like to listen to music or watch a movie on my N82 even though I can, but I do like the VoIP, Skype, Fring, plethora of applications that I can use to make my working experience pretty decent. The same can be said of the iPhone. Movies, music, audio books, browsing, the iPhone wins clearly. But can I send biz cards, do vCard, vCal (not sure if they added this to be honest in 1.1.4), VoIP calls, decent quality pics, MMS (do not use often but when I need it, I really need it). How about saving docs for later emailing? These are the basics features in a so-called smartphone and the iPhone lacks them. Without even going down the 3G road again, this is also missing. To ignore this and continue the "iPhone = smartphone) is a lack of understanding. This shows in the European sales. Clearly they have a better understanding of what biz needs (well European needs) are as opposed to the US biz market.
OK, but as Kickaha was saying, my point is that Apple is in a pretty good position to add functionality as they feel it is needed, or let third party developers do so.
And the important thing is this: they can add functionality within the context of a carefully thought out, desktop derived OS and UI, so that that functionality is easy to access, use and integrate-- not just with the rest of the iPhone apps but with the larger world of OS X and its desktop apps, iTunes, and things like movie rentals that can move between devices.
So, again everything you say about the current iteration of the iPhone may somewhat true, but the real story is what Apple can do going forward.
It still seems to me that what Apple has is a small form factor computer, with all that implies in terms of rapid rollouts of OS updates, flexibility, depth of interoperability, consistency of UI and interactions across apps, etc. That underlying power is only going to become more evident as the horsepower of these things keeps increasing. The distinction between desktop and palmtop devices is going to be mostly a matter of UI, and Apple has arguably the best thought out UI of the breed, atop a mature, well supported and very powerful OS.
Nokia has an extended phone OS, originally designed to run on far more constrained hardware. At some point, that becomes a problem if what the market is demanding is tiny general purpose computers, where telephony is a feature.
The situation is analogous to if Adobe had been a maker of really good stand alone graphics appliances, running their very good application suite, in a world where stand alone graphics appliances are the only game in town, due to historical hardware constraints. Over time they've managed to allow third party apps on these appliances, to extend their usefulness, but basically these are single purpose machines which have been modified and extended to meet a gradually growing demand for more general purpose devices.
Then someone comes along and makes a personal computer. It doesn't do graphics as well as the Adobe kit, but it does a lot of other stuff, and is far more flexible and open ended in its underlying design philosophy. Still, a lot of people dismiss the newcomer, because they persist in thinking of all computing machines as being intrinsically graphics appliances, and Adobe has demonstrated mastery at that game.
So Adobe has core expertise in their field, and in this scenario let's figure they've been building pretty good hardware to run their stuff. But do you really want to bet on them carrying the day, when it comes time to compete with a actual computers that were designed as such from the beginning? Will they be able to work their way out of the collection of apps and UI bits that they've been calling an "operating system", and do it without breaking compatibility with all that came before? Do it fast enough to compete with a real OS?
Apple is a computer company. Nokia is a phone company. If the future belongs to computers that can make calls, is it easier for the computer company to figure out how to make telephony apps, or the phone company to figure out how to make computers?