I for one will be glad to dump my Treo 700p in a heartbeat when the iPhone comes out. I'm tired of all the freezes and restarts I have to perform.
What makes the iPhone compelling, and what is going to blow away the phone community, is multitouch. While lots of phone makers are adding larger screens, none of them to date, except for Apple, have anything as exciting and innovative as multitouch.
Having owned a smartphone for quite a while, I can say that ease of use is everything when you're dealing with a handheld device. If it does what you want, but takes too many steps to get to it, it won't prevail in the market. The iPhone will do many of the same things that I already do with my 700p, but much better: the web browser is lightyears ahead of the awful browser in the 700p.
The same goes for the other apps in the iPhone. So far as guys trying to buy an iPhone without a data plan, I seriously doubt that will even be possible.
I get an occasional freeze as well as the rare need to reset. But, it's not too much of a bother. No information is ever lost, and my settings alswys remain the same.
Sprint does have good data service, and it isn't nearly as expensive as that of Verison.
But, one of the controversies with AT&T as we see here, is their lack of much coverage with high speed, and that the EDGE service is so slow. You will be very disappointed with Apple's browser if the service is running at just 10% of the speed of Sprints!
I'm willing to put up with some annoyances I have with the Treo for that.
I also have said that I don't think one will be able to get this without a data plan. Even if it were possible, I can hardly see the point.
Well you are the one who initially said its a big mistake for Apple to leave 3G off of the iPhone.
Yes, I made no contradiction.
Quote:
I agree. But the iPhone will sell either way.
Of course it will sell. But will it sell for the right reasons? By that I mean, will it sell just because it's an "iPhone" from Apple and looks cool, or will it sell to people who are evaluating it calmly and critically.
The ones who will buy it for a fad will be the first ones that will be disappointed once they realize the device is slow, and doesn't perform as well as some others are.
Quote:
That's totally different. I'm talking about video you can actually use on the device.
I know, but I don't believe that people will want to keep much video on this anyway. I keep saying that people won't be interested in watching the same tv shows and movies on their small phone screens over and over. You watch it once, and delete it from the phone. If you really want to watch it on the phone again in several months time, you can add it back.
Quote:
How would you know this for sure? With the ability to get almost anything from P2P, I would more believe people carrying around video is becoming more common. Especially people under 25.
This is really part of the above question and answer.
I don't care if it is P2P or not. Once you watch it, you remove it.
And don't put this on people under 25. I don't think they are anymore wasteful of space than those of us above 25.
Quote:
Well I mean if Apple nourishes a developer community there will be no shortage of apps. And how do you know Apples way? Steve never said they would allow no third party apps. He said they would control what software can be added to the iPhone.
Of course, after a year or two there MIGHT be a large developer community.
I posted this quote from Jobs before, and we commented upon it. You might not remember. As you will read, I would never have said that Apple would allow no third party software. Before Jobs gave his first interview that was published, I did question whether Apple would allow third party software. When posting these for the first time, I said that it looked like Apple would likely have third party software. But that Apple would have to approve it first. It's from here:
" We decided what software would be on the phone. And so we could make the product we wanted.?
But it?s not like the walled garden has gone away. ?You don?t want your phone to be an open platform,? meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. ?You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn?t want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up.?
?These are devices that need to work, and you can?t do that if you load any software on them,? he said. ?That doesn?t mean there?s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn?t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.?
Jobs definitely wants to control what goes on the phone. There is no question about that. He says it over and over again, in every interview he has had. That will mean software will be far more limited than what we see for the Palm and CE environments.
Quotes from David Pogue NYTimes blog:
?Will the iPhone work without a SIM card installed? i.e., will it be able to surf the web/email?? ?Very doubtful."
?No 3G is almost a deal breaker. EDGE is horrible for a device this advanced?how did that get overlooked?? ?It wasn?t overlooked. 3G (HSDPA) is available only in a few cities. Apple says that when it?s more prevalent, the company will upgrade the iPhone."
Of course, as I've been saying, other smartphones in this price or type category have 2.5 or 3G already. That can't be the actual reason why Apple didn't include it now.
1) The iPhone currently has far more storage than pretty much any other phone or smartphone.
2) The vast majority of iPod sales has in the past few years consistently been in the area of 4 GBs. This is reflected not only in Apple's product line-up, which emphasizes the nano the most, rather than the regular-sized iPod, but more importantly in the average selling price.
The iPhone's capacity will likely double just about every year anyway, making this a moot point in the long run.
And this is what some people are having a hard time understanding.
Right now, and I'm pretty sure for the near future as well, there are NO phones with 32 GB storage. I don't know of any with 16 GB that are available either. SD cards only come up to 4 GB for phones (and most phones will only take cards up to 2 GB). So one can have far more storage?but not at the same time. That was the deal breaker for the ROKKER as well (The 100 song limit per card was a crock, because the card could only hold about 125 songs when full anyway.)
As you say, the storage will double about every year. But, those people will never be happy. When it does get to 32 GB, they will be complaining that it isn't 64 GB, and on, and on.
The iPhone currently has far more storage than pretty much any other phone or smartphone.
Yes I argued this point at first, but other phones do offer micro SD card slots, which at this point the largest is 4GB.
The iPhone is $500, Apple should give as much as it can for that price. Some will argue that Apple probably is offering its best deal. In 2005 Apple had the leverage to get Samsung to agree to dedicate 40% of its manufacturing capacity at a discount for flash drives that Samsung did not make available to anyone else. Apple can certainly offer better than 4GB/8GB today.
Quote:
The vast majority of iPod sales has in the past few years consistently been in the area of 4 GBs.
Yes but that has just as much to do with price as it does for storage needs. If Apple offered more storage at the same price people would buy it just the same. You need more than 4GB once you add video to the mix.
Quote:
or just go and buy another phone that can play music as well as this, as well as videos, that has the 32 GB of storage they are insisting upon.
Yes there is no other device like this, that is the whole point. Takes bold moves to move into a crowded market with aspirations to dominate it.
Apple could bump the iPod video to 100GB/60GB. Continuing its past relationship with Samsung bump the top Nano to 32GB using the same drive in the iPhone.
Jobs definitely wants to control what goes on the phone. There is no question about that. He says it over and over again, in every interview he has had. That will mean software will be far more limited than what we see for the Palm and CE environments.
He's saying any software written will have to go through Apple. Any software written for the Palm does not have to go through Palm. The ultimate question is how controlling will Apple be. I agree at first I'm sure they will be extremely controlling.
Quote:
As you say, the storage will double about every year. But, those people will never be happy. When it does get to 32 GB, they will be complaining that it isn't 64 GB, and on, and on.
Its not as though I'm look for some future advanced technology, its already here.
Currently at most you have 8GB to store software, e-mails, contacts, IM messages, pictures, music, and video. With no option to add storage. Asking for more storage is not unreasonable.
Yes I argued this point at first, but other phones do offer micro SD card slots, which at this point the largest is 4GB.
Which is
1) far more annoying to handle
2) still half as much as the larger iPhone.
Far away from the 32 GBs number some people keep bringing up here.
Quote:
The iPhone is $500, Apple should give as much as it can for that price. Some will argue that Apple probably is offering its best deal. In 2005 Apple had the leverage to get Samsung to agree to dedicate 40% of its manufacturing capacity at a discount for flash drives that Samsung did not make available to anyone else. Apple can certainly offer better than 4GB/8GB today.
If they made it thicker and heavier, they might be able to fit in some more while not bumping up the price too much, yes. Keeping it thin and lightweight is a rather beneficial goal for a portable device, however.
Quote:
Yes but that has just as much to do with price as it does for storage needs. If Apple offered more storage at the same price people would buy it just the same. You need more than 4GB once you add video to the mix.
It has to do with being good enough for most people. Videos generally require more space, agreed, but that is, as I have said, only a temporary issue.
Quote:
Yes there is no other device like this, that is the whole point. Takes bold moves to move into a crowded market with aspirations to dominate it.
If the one big problem with the iPhone is that its storage could be slightly higher, then I'd say it is indeed a very bold entry. For a 1.0 product, the iPhone has very few issues. Lack of GPS (apparently), lack of 3G, lack of third-party applications and somewhat low storage (but still several times as much as most competitors).
Quote:
Apple could bump the iPod video to 100GB/60GB.
And they likely will. So?
Quote:
Continuing its past relationship with Samsung bump the top Nano to 32GB using the same drive in the iPhone.
The iPhone doesn't use a drive. It uses individual chips. You couldn't fit more chis in without making it thicker, heavier and more expensive. It really is that simple. As memory density increases, this will become a moot point.
I don't know why people keep bringing up "flash drives", which are a misnomer anyway, and are certainly completely irrelevant to any Apple product. Individual flash chips are more flexible, more scalable, and actually used by Apple.
A picture of a SanDisk 32GB flash drive in a 1.8" case.
I can imagine Sandisk or Samsung are likely lobbying Apple to use these drives in the iPhone. That would further make the iPhone an awesome device. Lucrative for Apple and lucrative for the flash manufacturer. But that doesn't mean Apple will do it.
Yes I argued this point at first, but other phones do offer micro SD card slots, which at this point the largest is 4GB.
The iPhone is $500, Apple should give as much as it can for that price. Some will argue that Apple probably is offering its best deal. In 2005 Apple had the leverage to get Samsung to agree to dedicate 40% of its manufacturing capacity at a discount for flash drives that Samsung did not make available to anyone else. Apple can certainly offer better than 4GB/8GB today.
I'm certain that Apple is offering the most memory it can for the price they are charging . I don't know why you would disagree with that.
You don't know what Apple is paying for memory, or the chip sizes that the deal was for. It wasn't for any memory Samsung subseguently produces. It was for specific size chips. That's how all memory deals are made.
As there are no larger chips currently available, apple would have to use more than two 4GB chips if they wanted to put more memory into the device. How do you suggest they do that without using more space, and the doubled battery drain for the memory that would result?
Quote:
Yes but that has just as much to do with price as it does for storage needs. If Apple offered more storage at the same price people would buy it just the same. You need more than 4GB once you add video to the mix.
You are making the assumption that every buyer of these phone will want to put massive amounts of video on them. They won't.
If someone wants to put more video on the phone, then they will buy the 8 GB model. It's that simple! You don't get something for nothing.
If 8 GB isn't enough?tough! Wait until Apple can install more, or continue using your 5.5G iPod, or wait until Apple offers the new model, supposedly based on this, but with HD storage.
Quote:
Yes there is no other device like this, that is the whole point. Takes bold moves to move into a crowded market with aspirations to dominate it.
Yes, that is the whole point. It isn't possible to put that much SS storage into a phone, or even a computer right now. Period!!!
Quote:
Apple could bump the iPod video to 100GB/60GB. Continuing its past relationship with Samsung bump the top Nano to 32GB using the same drive in the iPhone.
Apple could have bumped the iPod to 100 GB a year ago. They didn't. Why? Likely because their surveys showed that too few of their customers would have spent the extra money for it, and so they lowered the price instead.
Sure, triple the thickness and you could FIT 32 GB in there. But then you would have less than one half the battery life, at four times the price.
A picture of a SanDisk 32GB flash drive in a 1.8" case.
I can imagine Sandisk or Samsung are likely lobbying Apple to use these drives in the iPhone. That would further make the iPhone an awesome device. Lucrative for Apple and lucrative for the flash manufacturer. But that doesn't mean Apple will do it.
I don't know how clear I have to make myself, but let's see:
Flash drives are completely irrelevant to all of Apple's current and announced products.
And, by the way, 1.8 inches is the form factor of the regularly-sized iPod. As in, much thicker, larger and heavier than the iPod nano and iPhone. Even 1 inch (as in the iPod mini) would be an unsuitable form factor. But, to repeat myself once more, Apple is completely uninterested in having a fixed form factor with flash memory to begin with.
A picture of a SanDisk 32GB flash drive in a 1.8" case.
I can imagine Sandisk or Samsung are likely lobbying Apple to use these drives in the iPhone. That would further make the iPhone an awesome device. Lucrative for Apple and lucrative for the flash manufacturer. But that doesn't mean Apple will do it.
Now, find out how much that drive costs retail. Now find out how much power it consumes.
That will be how much Apple will have to charge for it as well. The power used will be much higher than what is being used in the phone now.
I just did a little Google search. Here it is, with other SS drives. Nice pricing, don't you agree? Just about right for the iPod, or the iPhone (cynicism intentional).
Now, find out how much that drive costs retail. Now find out how much power it consumes.
As far as the price that's where discounts in trade for the lucrative iPod/iPhone market come in. Apple can choose whomever it wants for flash drives, everyone would do what they need to jockey for position. A 32 GB flash drive should retrieve information faster and consume less power than the 30 GB HDD in the current iPod Video. I don't believe they will do it. I'm just saying this is a weakness in the design and intention of the phone.
But fine if 32 GB is shooting too far for the moon they could give us a 16GB at $500.
As far as the price that's where discounts in trade for the lucrative iPod/iPhone market come in. Apple can choose whomever it wants for flash drives, everyone would do what they need to jockey for position. A 32 GB flash drive should retrieve information faster and consume less power than the 30 GB HDD in the current iPod Video. I don't believe they will do it. I'm just saying this is a weakness in the design and intention of the phone.
But fine if 32 GB is shooting too far for the moon they could give us a 16GB at $500.
They could give us 16 GB for maybe, just maybe, $850.
As in, much thicker, larger and heavier than the iPod nano and iPhone.
The 30GB iPod video is actually thinner and weighs the same as the iPhone. While the iPhone is longer.
Quote:
They could give us 16 GB for maybe, just maybe, $850.
Discounts in trade for access to the lucrative iPod/iPhone market. I'm sure that Apple does not play fair with its suppliers, especially with the iPods dominating position.
The 30GB iPod video is actually thinner and weighs the same as the iPhone. While the iPhone is longer.
You just gave a very good reason for using a hard drive, and removing almost all of the other components, including most of the high current applications, such as the phone transmitter/receiver, the WiFi, the large screen, and the Bluetooth.
Hey! We now have the 5.5 G iPod! What a coincidence!
Quote:
Discounts in trade for access to the lucrative iPod/iPhone market. I'm sure that Apple does not play fair with its suppliers, especially with the iPods dominating position.
I'm sure Apple gets no more than its suppliers are willing to give.
If Apple were very fortunate, the price of Apple's device could cost $850, but probably much more at this time.
The bigger battery would have to be factored into it as well as all of the other areas in which this would increase the price, including shipping costs, etc.
Yes but that has just as much to do with price as it does for storage needs. If Apple offered more storage at the same price people would buy it just the same. You need more than 4GB once you add video to the mix.
I've had a phone with a 3" diagonal touch screen for over two years now and I think I've watched video on it twice seriously - TV shows I've missed not movies.
Once you've resized a TV show or movie down to the size of the screen it doesn't actually take up much space and it's not like you keep it on your phone forever after you've watched it.
My phone has a 512MB card in the side. It's usually got 400MB of music on it, apps, photos, TomTom Mobile GPS maps. I very rarely have to jettison data to fit other stuff in. I don't expect to carry my entire home folder on my phone (it's 190GB so that's unlikely) just as I wouldn't on an iPod.
4GB or 8GB to me seems like a huge vast area I'm not likely to fill in reality. It'll just be full up of more music I suspect, not video, because it's a neat trick playing video on your phone but that's about it.
It doesn't have a wireless card, it has WiFi built-in.
That is no guarantee that that it will be usable to get onto data services. There are ways of limiting this. It could be tied to AT&T's services. We don't know yet.
Remember that there are ways to limit just what you use the WiFi connection for, as well as the other phone based data services.
...
If one doesn't have a data plan from AT&T (though it might be required when getting the iPhone, I didn't look at AT&T's site plan for this.), or one discontinues the service, the WiFi could be effectively disabled in software, or its functions limited. It can be done.
Would it be? No one here can know that now, no matter what they may say.
Maybe a dumb question, but what is the difference between a wireless card
and WiFi built-in? I was under the impression, that the iPhone contains a
small but standard "wireless card" aka "Airport Card", no? Given that, i thought,
that the iPhone could connect to any given wireless Internet signal, no?
So even i can't use the iphone as a cell phone (in Europe) for a while,
i could use it as a small Internet station - and as an iPod of course.
Now, find out how much that drive costs retail. Now find out how much power it consumes.
That will be how much Apple will have to charge for it as well. The power used will be much higher than what is being used in the phone now.
I just did a little Google search. Here it is, with other SS drives. Nice pricing, don't you agree? Just about right for the iPod, or the iPhone (cynicism intentional).
The point of the new drives are that flash prices are dropping rapidly and will drop even faster as they get adopted into sub-notebooks. The power requirements for that particular drive is 0.4W and retail costs are exepcted to be $600 for 32GB which is half the price for 32GB last fall (octoberish). If that scales then new retail 16GB drives might appear at old 8GB pricing (~$300) and so forth.
Apple turned down hybrids last year (was it samsung?) and they have good contracts with flash suppliers so they can do far better then retail pricing. An 8GB Nano is only $249 which is far less than the price you see for flash SSD on the retail market from last fall or even today...and $300 was a CHEAP price last fall from 1 manufacturer and it was dog slow in comparison to other flash SSD drives. Not the $600 for 8GB you see on DVNation.
Using your same arguments the 8GB Nano is also clearly "impossible" at $249 because DVNation prices are so high.
I've had a phone with a 3" diagonal touch screen for over two years now and I think I've watched video on it twice seriously - TV shows I've missed not movies.
Once you've resized a TV show or movie down to the size of the screen it doesn't actually take up much space and it's not like you keep it on your phone forever after you've watched it.
My phone has a 512MB card in the side. It's usually got 400MB of music on it, apps, photos, TomTom Mobile GPS maps. I very rarely have to jettison data to fit other stuff in. I don't expect to carry my entire home folder on my phone (it's 190GB so that's unlikely) just as I wouldn't on an iPod.
4GB or 8GB to me seems like a huge vast area I'm not likely to fill in reality. It'll just be full up of more music I suspect, not video, because it's a neat trick playing video on your phone but that's about it.
I have a 1GB thumb drive that's full of work documents. My wife's 30GB iPod is half full of kid photos. I have a PDA/GPS that's 512MB that's full of maps and satellite imagery.
Folks will always fill up drives if you give them more room.
Comments
I for one will be glad to dump my Treo 700p in a heartbeat when the iPhone comes out. I'm tired of all the freezes and restarts I have to perform.
What makes the iPhone compelling, and what is going to blow away the phone community, is multitouch. While lots of phone makers are adding larger screens, none of them to date, except for Apple, have anything as exciting and innovative as multitouch.
Having owned a smartphone for quite a while, I can say that ease of use is everything when you're dealing with a handheld device. If it does what you want, but takes too many steps to get to it, it won't prevail in the market. The iPhone will do many of the same things that I already do with my 700p, but much better: the web browser is lightyears ahead of the awful browser in the 700p.
The same goes for the other apps in the iPhone. So far as guys trying to buy an iPhone without a data plan, I seriously doubt that will even be possible.
I get an occasional freeze as well as the rare need to reset. But, it's not too much of a bother. No information is ever lost, and my settings alswys remain the same.
Sprint does have good data service, and it isn't nearly as expensive as that of Verison.
But, one of the controversies with AT&T as we see here, is their lack of much coverage with high speed, and that the EDGE service is so slow. You will be very disappointed with Apple's browser if the service is running at just 10% of the speed of Sprints!
I'm willing to put up with some annoyances I have with the Treo for that.
I also have said that I don't think one will be able to get this without a data plan. Even if it were possible, I can hardly see the point.
Well you are the one who initially said its a big mistake for Apple to leave 3G off of the iPhone.
Yes, I made no contradiction.
I agree. But the iPhone will sell either way.
Of course it will sell. But will it sell for the right reasons? By that I mean, will it sell just because it's an "iPhone" from Apple and looks cool, or will it sell to people who are evaluating it calmly and critically.
The ones who will buy it for a fad will be the first ones that will be disappointed once they realize the device is slow, and doesn't perform as well as some others are.
That's totally different. I'm talking about video you can actually use on the device.
I know, but I don't believe that people will want to keep much video on this anyway. I keep saying that people won't be interested in watching the same tv shows and movies on their small phone screens over and over. You watch it once, and delete it from the phone. If you really want to watch it on the phone again in several months time, you can add it back.
How would you know this for sure? With the ability to get almost anything from P2P, I would more believe people carrying around video is becoming more common. Especially people under 25.
This is really part of the above question and answer.
I don't care if it is P2P or not. Once you watch it, you remove it.
And don't put this on people under 25. I don't think they are anymore wasteful of space than those of us above 25.
Well I mean if Apple nourishes a developer community there will be no shortage of apps. And how do you know Apples way? Steve never said they would allow no third party apps. He said they would control what software can be added to the iPhone.
Of course, after a year or two there MIGHT be a large developer community.
I posted this quote from Jobs before, and we commented upon it. You might not remember. As you will read, I would never have said that Apple would allow no third party software. Before Jobs gave his first interview that was published, I did question whether Apple would allow third party software. When posting these for the first time, I said that it looked like Apple would likely have third party software. But that Apple would have to approve it first. It's from here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16566968/site/newsweek/
The quote:
" We decided what software would be on the phone. And so we could make the product we wanted.?
But it?s not like the walled garden has gone away. ?You don?t want your phone to be an open platform,? meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. ?You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn?t want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up.?
I've never heard of that ever happening.
Another quote. This time from here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/te...erland&emc=rss
?These are devices that need to work, and you can?t do that if you load any software on them,? he said. ?That doesn?t mean there?s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn?t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.?
Jobs definitely wants to control what goes on the phone. There is no question about that. He says it over and over again, in every interview he has had. That will mean software will be far more limited than what we see for the Palm and CE environments.
Quotes from David Pogue NYTimes blog:
?Will the iPhone work without a SIM card installed? i.e., will it be able to surf the web/email?? ?Very doubtful."
?No 3G is almost a deal breaker. EDGE is horrible for a device this advanced?how did that get overlooked?? ?It wasn?t overlooked. 3G (HSDPA) is available only in a few cities. Apple says that when it?s more prevalent, the company will upgrade the iPhone."
Of course, as I've been saying, other smartphones in this price or type category have 2.5 or 3G already. That can't be the actual reason why Apple didn't include it now.
Bingo.
1) The iPhone currently has far more storage than pretty much any other phone or smartphone.
2) The vast majority of iPod sales has in the past few years consistently been in the area of 4 GBs. This is reflected not only in Apple's product line-up, which emphasizes the nano the most, rather than the regular-sized iPod, but more importantly in the average selling price.
The iPhone's capacity will likely double just about every year anyway, making this a moot point in the long run.
And this is what some people are having a hard time understanding.
Right now, and I'm pretty sure for the near future as well, there are NO phones with 32 GB storage. I don't know of any with 16 GB that are available either. SD cards only come up to 4 GB for phones (and most phones will only take cards up to 2 GB). So one can have far more storage?but not at the same time. That was the deal breaker for the ROKKER as well (The 100 song limit per card was a crock, because the card could only hold about 125 songs when full anyway.)
As you say, the storage will double about every year. But, those people will never be happy. When it does get to 32 GB, they will be complaining that it isn't 64 GB, and on, and on.
The iPhone currently has far more storage than pretty much any other phone or smartphone.
Yes I argued this point at first, but other phones do offer micro SD card slots, which at this point the largest is 4GB.
The iPhone is $500, Apple should give as much as it can for that price. Some will argue that Apple probably is offering its best deal. In 2005 Apple had the leverage to get Samsung to agree to dedicate 40% of its manufacturing capacity at a discount for flash drives that Samsung did not make available to anyone else. Apple can certainly offer better than 4GB/8GB today.
The vast majority of iPod sales has in the past few years consistently been in the area of 4 GBs.
Yes but that has just as much to do with price as it does for storage needs. If Apple offered more storage at the same price people would buy it just the same. You need more than 4GB once you add video to the mix.
or just go and buy another phone that can play music as well as this, as well as videos, that has the 32 GB of storage they are insisting upon.
Yes there is no other device like this, that is the whole point. Takes bold moves to move into a crowded market with aspirations to dominate it.
Apple could bump the iPod video to 100GB/60GB. Continuing its past relationship with Samsung bump the top Nano to 32GB using the same drive in the iPhone.
But of course Apple knows this.
Jobs definitely wants to control what goes on the phone. There is no question about that. He says it over and over again, in every interview he has had. That will mean software will be far more limited than what we see for the Palm and CE environments.
He's saying any software written will have to go through Apple. Any software written for the Palm does not have to go through Palm. The ultimate question is how controlling will Apple be. I agree at first I'm sure they will be extremely controlling.
As you say, the storage will double about every year. But, those people will never be happy. When it does get to 32 GB, they will be complaining that it isn't 64 GB, and on, and on.
Its not as though I'm look for some future advanced technology, its already here.
Currently at most you have 8GB to store software, e-mails, contacts, IM messages, pictures, music, and video. With no option to add storage. Asking for more storage is not unreasonable.
Yes I argued this point at first, but other phones do offer micro SD card slots, which at this point the largest is 4GB.
Which is
1) far more annoying to handle
2) still half as much as the larger iPhone.
Far away from the 32 GBs number some people keep bringing up here.
The iPhone is $500, Apple should give as much as it can for that price. Some will argue that Apple probably is offering its best deal. In 2005 Apple had the leverage to get Samsung to agree to dedicate 40% of its manufacturing capacity at a discount for flash drives that Samsung did not make available to anyone else. Apple can certainly offer better than 4GB/8GB today.
If they made it thicker and heavier, they might be able to fit in some more while not bumping up the price too much, yes. Keeping it thin and lightweight is a rather beneficial goal for a portable device, however.
Yes but that has just as much to do with price as it does for storage needs. If Apple offered more storage at the same price people would buy it just the same. You need more than 4GB once you add video to the mix.
It has to do with being good enough for most people. Videos generally require more space, agreed, but that is, as I have said, only a temporary issue.
Yes there is no other device like this, that is the whole point. Takes bold moves to move into a crowded market with aspirations to dominate it.
If the one big problem with the iPhone is that its storage could be slightly higher, then I'd say it is indeed a very bold entry. For a 1.0 product, the iPhone has very few issues. Lack of GPS (apparently), lack of 3G, lack of third-party applications and somewhat low storage (but still several times as much as most competitors).
Apple could bump the iPod video to 100GB/60GB.
And they likely will. So?
Continuing its past relationship with Samsung bump the top Nano to 32GB using the same drive in the iPhone.
The iPhone doesn't use a drive. It uses individual chips. You couldn't fit more chis in without making it thicker, heavier and more expensive. It really is that simple. As memory density increases, this will become a moot point.
I don't know why people keep bringing up "flash drives", which are a misnomer anyway, and are certainly completely irrelevant to any Apple product. Individual flash chips are more flexible, more scalable, and actually used by Apple.
I can imagine Sandisk or Samsung are likely lobbying Apple to use these drives in the iPhone. That would further make the iPhone an awesome device. Lucrative for Apple and lucrative for the flash manufacturer. But that doesn't mean Apple will do it.
Yes I argued this point at first, but other phones do offer micro SD card slots, which at this point the largest is 4GB.
The iPhone is $500, Apple should give as much as it can for that price. Some will argue that Apple probably is offering its best deal. In 2005 Apple had the leverage to get Samsung to agree to dedicate 40% of its manufacturing capacity at a discount for flash drives that Samsung did not make available to anyone else. Apple can certainly offer better than 4GB/8GB today.
I'm certain that Apple is offering the most memory it can for the price they are charging . I don't know why you would disagree with that.
You don't know what Apple is paying for memory, or the chip sizes that the deal was for. It wasn't for any memory Samsung subseguently produces. It was for specific size chips. That's how all memory deals are made.
As there are no larger chips currently available, apple would have to use more than two 4GB chips if they wanted to put more memory into the device. How do you suggest they do that without using more space, and the doubled battery drain for the memory that would result?
Yes but that has just as much to do with price as it does for storage needs. If Apple offered more storage at the same price people would buy it just the same. You need more than 4GB once you add video to the mix.
You are making the assumption that every buyer of these phone will want to put massive amounts of video on them. They won't.
If someone wants to put more video on the phone, then they will buy the 8 GB model. It's that simple! You don't get something for nothing.
If 8 GB isn't enough?tough! Wait until Apple can install more, or continue using your 5.5G iPod, or wait until Apple offers the new model, supposedly based on this, but with HD storage.
Yes there is no other device like this, that is the whole point. Takes bold moves to move into a crowded market with aspirations to dominate it.
Yes, that is the whole point. It isn't possible to put that much SS storage into a phone, or even a computer right now. Period!!!
Apple could bump the iPod video to 100GB/60GB. Continuing its past relationship with Samsung bump the top Nano to 32GB using the same drive in the iPhone.
Apple could have bumped the iPod to 100 GB a year ago. They didn't. Why? Likely because their surveys showed that too few of their customers would have spent the extra money for it, and so they lowered the price instead.
Sure, triple the thickness and you could FIT 32 GB in there. But then you would have less than one half the battery life, at four times the price.
But of course Apple knows this.
No, you wish it were possible, when it isn't.
A picture of a SanDisk 32GB flash drive in a 1.8" case.
I can imagine Sandisk or Samsung are likely lobbying Apple to use these drives in the iPhone. That would further make the iPhone an awesome device. Lucrative for Apple and lucrative for the flash manufacturer. But that doesn't mean Apple will do it.
I don't know how clear I have to make myself, but let's see:
Flash drives are completely irrelevant to all of Apple's current and announced products.
And, by the way, 1.8 inches is the form factor of the regularly-sized iPod. As in, much thicker, larger and heavier than the iPod nano and iPhone. Even 1 inch (as in the iPod mini) would be an unsuitable form factor. But, to repeat myself once more, Apple is completely uninterested in having a fixed form factor with flash memory to begin with.
A picture of a SanDisk 32GB flash drive in a 1.8" case.
I can imagine Sandisk or Samsung are likely lobbying Apple to use these drives in the iPhone. That would further make the iPhone an awesome device. Lucrative for Apple and lucrative for the flash manufacturer. But that doesn't mean Apple will do it.
Now, find out how much that drive costs retail. Now find out how much power it consumes.
That will be how much Apple will have to charge for it as well. The power used will be much higher than what is being used in the phone now.
I just did a little Google search. Here it is, with other SS drives. Nice pricing, don't you agree? Just about right for the iPod, or the iPhone (cynicism intentional).
http://www.dvnation.com/nand-flash-ssd.html
Now, find out how much that drive costs retail. Now find out how much power it consumes.
As far as the price that's where discounts in trade for the lucrative iPod/iPhone market come in. Apple can choose whomever it wants for flash drives, everyone would do what they need to jockey for position. A 32 GB flash drive should retrieve information faster and consume less power than the 30 GB HDD in the current iPod Video. I don't believe they will do it. I'm just saying this is a weakness in the design and intention of the phone.
But fine if 32 GB is shooting too far for the moon they could give us a 16GB at $500.
As far as the price that's where discounts in trade for the lucrative iPod/iPhone market come in. Apple can choose whomever it wants for flash drives, everyone would do what they need to jockey for position. A 32 GB flash drive should retrieve information faster and consume less power than the 30 GB HDD in the current iPod Video. I don't believe they will do it. I'm just saying this is a weakness in the design and intention of the phone.
But fine if 32 GB is shooting too far for the moon they could give us a 16GB at $500.
They could give us 16 GB for maybe, just maybe, $850.
As in, much thicker, larger and heavier than the iPod nano and iPhone.
The 30GB iPod video is actually thinner and weighs the same as the iPhone. While the iPhone is longer.
They could give us 16 GB for maybe, just maybe, $850.
Discounts in trade for access to the lucrative iPod/iPhone market. I'm sure that Apple does not play fair with its suppliers, especially with the iPods dominating position.
The 30GB iPod video is actually thinner and weighs the same as the iPhone. While the iPhone is longer.
The iPod video has no cellular, no WiFi, no camera, no full-sized screen, and the list goes on.
The 30GB iPod video is actually thinner and weighs the same as the iPhone. While the iPhone is longer.
You just gave a very good reason for using a hard drive, and removing almost all of the other components, including most of the high current applications, such as the phone transmitter/receiver, the WiFi, the large screen, and the Bluetooth.
Hey! We now have the 5.5 G iPod! What a coincidence!
Discounts in trade for access to the lucrative iPod/iPhone market. I'm sure that Apple does not play fair with its suppliers, especially with the iPods dominating position.
I'm sure Apple gets no more than its suppliers are willing to give.
If Apple were very fortunate, the price of Apple's device could cost $850, but probably much more at this time.
The bigger battery would have to be factored into it as well as all of the other areas in which this would increase the price, including shipping costs, etc.
Give it up. It ain't gonna happen.
Yes but that has just as much to do with price as it does for storage needs. If Apple offered more storage at the same price people would buy it just the same. You need more than 4GB once you add video to the mix.
I've had a phone with a 3" diagonal touch screen for over two years now and I think I've watched video on it twice seriously - TV shows I've missed not movies.
Once you've resized a TV show or movie down to the size of the screen it doesn't actually take up much space and it's not like you keep it on your phone forever after you've watched it.
My phone has a 512MB card in the side. It's usually got 400MB of music on it, apps, photos, TomTom Mobile GPS maps. I very rarely have to jettison data to fit other stuff in. I don't expect to carry my entire home folder on my phone (it's 190GB so that's unlikely) just as I wouldn't on an iPod.
4GB or 8GB to me seems like a huge vast area I'm not likely to fill in reality. It'll just be full up of more music I suspect, not video, because it's a neat trick playing video on your phone but that's about it.
It doesn't have a wireless card, it has WiFi built-in.
That is no guarantee that that it will be usable to get onto data services. There are ways of limiting this. It could be tied to AT&T's services. We don't know yet.
Remember that there are ways to limit just what you use the WiFi connection for, as well as the other phone based data services.
...
If one doesn't have a data plan from AT&T (though it might be required when getting the iPhone, I didn't look at AT&T's site plan for this.), or one discontinues the service, the WiFi could be effectively disabled in software, or its functions limited. It can be done.
Would it be? No one here can know that now, no matter what they may say.
Maybe a dumb question, but what is the difference between a wireless card
and WiFi built-in? I was under the impression, that the iPhone contains a
small but standard "wireless card" aka "Airport Card", no? Given that, i thought,
that the iPhone could connect to any given wireless Internet signal, no?
So even i can't use the iphone as a cell phone (in Europe) for a while,
i could use it as a small Internet station - and as an iPod of course.
Just curious.
Maybe a dumb question, but what is the difference between a wireless card
and WiFi built-in?
Less flexibility, but also less required space.
the iPhone could connect to any given wireless Internet signal, no?
So even i can't use the iphone as a cell phone (in Europe) for a while,
i could use it as a small Internet station - and as an iPod of course.
Yes, certainly. You just won't be able to upgrade it to a newer standard, because it's not a daughtercard.
Now, find out how much that drive costs retail. Now find out how much power it consumes.
That will be how much Apple will have to charge for it as well. The power used will be much higher than what is being used in the phone now.
I just did a little Google search. Here it is, with other SS drives. Nice pricing, don't you agree? Just about right for the iPod, or the iPhone (cynicism intentional).
http://www.dvnation.com/nand-flash-ssd.html
The point of the new drives are that flash prices are dropping rapidly and will drop even faster as they get adopted into sub-notebooks. The power requirements for that particular drive is 0.4W and retail costs are exepcted to be $600 for 32GB which is half the price for 32GB last fall (octoberish). If that scales then new retail 16GB drives might appear at old 8GB pricing (~$300) and so forth.
Apple turned down hybrids last year (was it samsung?) and they have good contracts with flash suppliers so they can do far better then retail pricing. An 8GB Nano is only $249 which is far less than the price you see for flash SSD on the retail market from last fall or even today...and $300 was a CHEAP price last fall from 1 manufacturer and it was dog slow in comparison to other flash SSD drives. Not the $600 for 8GB you see on DVNation.
Using your same arguments the 8GB Nano is also clearly "impossible" at $249 because DVNation prices are so high.
Vinea
I've had a phone with a 3" diagonal touch screen for over two years now and I think I've watched video on it twice seriously - TV shows I've missed not movies.
Once you've resized a TV show or movie down to the size of the screen it doesn't actually take up much space and it's not like you keep it on your phone forever after you've watched it.
My phone has a 512MB card in the side. It's usually got 400MB of music on it, apps, photos, TomTom Mobile GPS maps. I very rarely have to jettison data to fit other stuff in. I don't expect to carry my entire home folder on my phone (it's 190GB so that's unlikely) just as I wouldn't on an iPod.
4GB or 8GB to me seems like a huge vast area I'm not likely to fill in reality. It'll just be full up of more music I suspect, not video, because it's a neat trick playing video on your phone but that's about it.
I have a 1GB thumb drive that's full of work documents. My wife's 30GB iPod is half full of kid photos. I have a PDA/GPS that's 512MB that's full of maps and satellite imagery.
Folks will always fill up drives if you give them more room.
Vinea