Originally Posted by trumptman
The defining features of smartphones for now is/was pushing email and other information out to the phone and thus the need for the data plan to go with that. This was the defacto understanding and even Apple marketed to it until they couldn't pull it off and made it disappear.
It is no different than 3G or aGPS being unimportant, until they suddenly were with the next revision. I have no doubt that when Apple gets push right in the next version of then iPhone software, a phone won't be a smartphone unless it does push per Apple.
Let's play a game. Find me ANOTHER phone defined as a smart phone that doesn't do push email.
I'm not sure why you've suddenly become hung up on push email. First of all push email is a service and is not a function directly of the phone. Most phones don't even have email much less push email, the phones most famous for push email is the Black Berry.
The iPhone does use push email. Its used Yahoo push email from the very beginning, with iPhone 2.0 can use Windows Exchange push email and Mobile Me push email, no other major email service such as Gmail provides push.
As I said push email is a service, it doesn't matter what the phone can do if you don't have an account with a service that provides push email.
I know what the other platforms do now and regardless of the Apple reasoning, they will adapt or die. Most of this has to do with power and battery life. Those will both improve and the limitations placed there now won't be necessary.
Adaptation is the need of every company. Getting into the mobile phone business was a big change for Apple.
If claiming that Apple dropping from third to fourth in the fastest declining segment of cell phone sales somehow makes you feel better than goodie for you. Declaring that Apple is kicking ass and taking names because they declare themselves to be the biggest growing fish in the smallest and shrinking pond is just not persuasive reasoning.
You completely take those numbers out of context. The iPhone platform dropped from third to fourth behind the Windows Mobile platform, meaning the iPhone as a single device platform is fourth behind all of the smartphones that Nokia, RIM, and Windows Media make.
Smartphones sales in the fourth quarter grew 3.7% year over year. Smartphones sales are growing just not as quickly as they would if we weren't in a global economic crisis.
How many BREW downloads do you think Verizon has across their entire network per year? You (and Apple) are creating a false distinction. One of the key points of smartphones is start off fully featured. The store makes it very easy to download, install and try apps, but the sale through and use afterwards has been shown to be very, very small. If someone tries 30 and buys two, or tries two and buys two, the results are the same in terms of finances. Finally both the App Store and BREW are walled gardens where Apple or Verizon determine who gets to sell what to whom.
This actually makes them quite different from most smart phone makers who do not appear to demand to be exclusive gate keepers to the app kingdom and very similar for comparison purposes.
You like to use terms like "cutting edge" and "full featured". All phones offer slightly different features, there are too many variations to come up with one standard for cutting edge or full featured.
I'm not sure of the point of Verizon BREW. What does that have to do with the number of App Store downloads?
What strange reasoning, I can't compare my Dare to the iPhone because it is a feature phone and not a smart phone in terms of sales, but you can just lump in iPod sales because, well just because since it isn't a smartphone either.
The Dare and the iPhone have nothing in common, they don't use the same operating system or the same applications. The iPod Touch and the iPhone do use the exact same operating system and the exact same applications. Therefore apps purchased from the same App Store are used for both.
The other iPod line (shuffle, nano, classic) have their own operating systems and don't use the App Store and are not included in App Store download numbers.
You prove my point. How can you declare it appropriate to add in sale via an MP3 player but refuse to add in sales via feature phones? The walls are artificial. How is the money spent on a BREW or JAVA application on feature phones worth any less than money spent on apps for smartphones? There is your own reasoning reflected back at ya.
You've totally lost me on this one. I have no idea what you are talking about. What do the sales of BREW or JAVA applications have to do with App store sales?
Having a minimum plan cost doesn't mean the feature is an add on that costs more. It is included free with all plans above certain dollar amounts. It isn't offered on the cheapest plan or pre-pay phones. Big deal.
At best its an additional feature that comes with the cost of a premium voice plan. Its not a service freely offered to all Verizon customers.
Time will tell. For now, they are simply the innovators who will help us see where the market might be a year from now.
You calling the low cost MVNO operators the innovators of the industry? They will be lucky to still be in business next year. Where is Helio Ocean, ESPN Mobile, Disney Mobile, Virgin Mobile.
Apple gives guidance every quarter.
They give broad guidance on expected revenue, they don't give an itemized description of the number of phones they expect to sell.
There might not be a way for them to maintain their iPhone success either. When Jobs introduced the iPhone, he said no one would be able to touch it for five years. Two years later the landscape is very different. Apple still rules for browsing and has some very useful and enjoyable solutions with regard to their app store. However there is no way they can simply refine for five years. The competition is already breathing down their neck very strongly.
Jobs knows the five year plan for the iPhone, we don't. No mobile operating system has yet come near the sophistication of the iPhone OS. The Palm Pre looks as though it might be the first real contender. Part of the reason for that is the Pre was developed by ex Apple employees.
The iPhone might be thought of as the first true consumer smartphone. People who owned Blackberrys and other similar phones were business guys who needed their email no matter what. The iPhone made such features desirable by the masses. That was great and gave Apple a leg in to a very competitive market. That market is still much larger than just the smart phone market. Apple can still capture that market because there is no "iPod" within the consumer phone market to slay. It isn't like Apple is the only party who can make a $50 MP3 player, but you stay with them because they offer the best solution and match the price point.
I don't think the iPhone was the first true consumer smartphone. Nokia has been making consumer centric smartphones for years. And in the US the T-Mobile SideKick has been extremely popular.
Their is no one smartphone that is as popular as the iPod, the reason for that is the mobile phone market is way too big for any one phone to dominate the entire thing.
MP3 players may not have been ubiquitous yet, but cd players, radios, walkmans, etc all were. There wasn't a standard to unify around and move the market forward. Apple did that and it was great. Cell phones are no different now. The iPhone was one of the first phones that made people realize they were staring at the computing platform of the future, the next generation's laptops. Apple can still do to cell phones what iPods did for managing and listening to music.
No matter how you attempt to rationalize it, no the mobile phone market is too big, too complex, and too established for Apple (or any one company) to dominate.