What i have been saying all along is that the iPhone is not a bad phone......
Just curious: How do you know? Have you used one a lot, or are you speculating?
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb
When Apple release a phone that can be sold into the 4&5 segments then they may well be onto a winner but in the 2&3 segment there are already better and cheaper phones available and it remains to be seen how far the Apple brand can convince people to overlook the high cost and missing features of the iPhone.
You may have missed just about EVERYTHING about the targeting, segmenting, and positioning of this phone if you think that 4 & 5 are likely markets. Or even 3, for that matter. The iPhone is meant to be a better version of a "smart"phone. Smartphones are still a small market in Europe, but a growing one. So "2" is the only likely segment.
Apple's stated goal is to get 1% of the market share in the first year (or year and a half, whichever). Period. It is not to convert low-end mobile phone buyers whose main form of communication is SMS, MMS etc.
- Hang out a lot wasting time in forums like these? Check ()
- Have any idea what an iPhone looks/feels like? Uncheck.
- Engadget trolls? (Probable) Check.
- Interested in iPhone? Who knows.
Also, there's likely a tremendous self-selection bias.
Honestly, no. If it'd been the jerk/poser crowd, or only Americans, I wouldn't have even brought them up.
If you read the comments, many seem to be from UKers who were honestly interested in the iPhone, knew about it, and were interested in a purchase. But were disappointed that all Steve served up was a warmed over 2.5G US iPhone.
Again, not really a stretch- Engadget was pretty much the place to be for live coverage.
lack of MMS will hurt the iphone in the UK more than the lack of 3g. MMS is huge here and buyers will expect it. you will see a lot of new users taking their back to the apple store and asking a 'genius' how to send a picture message...
The latest number I've seen have 478 million mobile phone users in Europe nearly 100% of the market. 45 million of those users are 3G subscribers, 9.4%.
Unfortunately, in the price segment the iPhone is competing in, most of the phones have 3G. \
Also 3G penetration rates are very uneven in Europe. Very low in places like Eastern Europe, but much higher in 'rich' Western European countries such as Italy.
Honestly, no. If it'd been the jerk/poser crowd, or only Americans, I wouldn't have even brought them up.
If you read the comments, many seem to be from UKers who were honestly interested in the iPhone, knew about it, and were interested in a purchase. But were disappointed that all Steve served up was a warmed over 2.5G US iPhone.
Again, not really a stretch- Engadget was pretty much the place to be for live coverage.
.
I did read the comments. Carefully. Early this morning (east coast time), soon after the event. And, on a couple of other forums too. For instance, the tenor of comments in macrumors.com was not very different from those in engadget.com (you can easily check it, so I won't provide a link).
It sounded to me like a bunch of tech-y types who had hyperventilated themselves into a frenzy -- expecting 32GB (OK, 16GB) 3G phones that could sing and dance, and came with Beatles on iTunes and movie downloads in HD -- and felt deflated. Just as they should.
I stand by my comment that it is probably 99% male, and 75% < 25 (references to which you took out in your response). The larger point I am making is, forums like these and self-selected posters like you and I are not at all representative of the typical iPhone user or target segment.
I stand by my comment that it is probably 99% male, and 75% < 25 (references to which you took out in your response). The larger point I am making is, forums like these and self-selected posters like you and I are not at all representative of the typical iPhone user or target segment.
Again, I'd disagree with you on both points. The Engadget commenters (who showed up for the live coverage) did not appear to be the usual crowd, and even if they were, geeky tech-interested Internet users do appear to be the iPhone's target demographic. I mean, if they're not, who is? Should Apple be advertising at bowling alleys?
I also don't get why you'd think they weren't interested in the iPhone. They obviously cared enough to comment on a UK iPhone event during or immediately after it happened. Doesn't sound like something Casual Carl would do.
Just curious: How do you know? Have you used one a lot, or are you speculating?
You may have missed just about EVERYTHING about the targeting, segmenting, and positioning of this phone if you think that 4 & 5 are likely markets. Or even 3, for that matter. The iPhone is meant to be a better version of a "smart"phone. Smartphones are still a small market in Europe, but a growing one. So "2" is the only likely segment.
Apple's stated goal is to get 1% of the market share in the first year (or year and a half, whichever). Period. It is not to convert low-end mobile phone buyers whose main form of communication is SMS, MMS etc.
I have not missed anything, if you read my post again you will see that is exactly what i said, the problem is that in the smartphone market we both agree that the iPhone is playing to there are far better phones available at cheaper prices and they are 3G making it very hard for Apple to compete in. Try reading posts properly before replying to them.
The reason why smartphones are the growing segment is enterprise driven, it is business who are buying smartphones. The high end Windows mobile phones and Blackberrys are being bought on business accounts. So while it is easy to understand why Apple have decided to launch their first phone into the more profitable high end segment it seems really stupid to not sell them to businesses.
All i said was that Apple would have got to 1% market share much quicker had they decided to start at the bottom end of the market.
Just curious: How do you know? Have you used one a lot, or are you speculating?
I have not used one, no. But i am not just speculating either, i am basing my knowledge purly on features / funcionality and price and 10 years experience of working in the telco and mobile communications industry in the UK. You do not need to use a phone to know whether its features and functions are suitable to the market it is being aimed at, this is what experience gives you.
It is not to convert low-end mobile phone buyers whose main form of communication is SMS, MMS etc.
I suggest to know little about the UK mobile market if you beleive that SMS and MMS are forms of communcation for low-end phone buyers only!
Everybody texts, i have only had business "smart phones" for years now and i text all the time, i text clients i text colleagues, i send far more texts that i send emails and text people more often that i call them. That is just the way it is and i am not alone.
I have not missed anything, if you read my post again you will see that is exactly what i said, the problem is that in the smartphone market we both agree that the iPhone is playing to there are far better phones available at cheaper prices and they are 3G making it very hard for Apple to compete in.
You are basing that "far better" purely on hardware spec and not based on a comparison of someone who have used them to compare.
On a spec sheet a 5 mp camera looks a lot better than a 2 mp camera. But if that 5mp is comparatively more difficult to use, most people would be fine with the 2 mp that is comparatively easier to use.
Who cares if its higher resolution if you have to go through a bunch of submenus to take a quick shot with friends.
I know this is four in a row, pretty bad i guess, what is the record?
The problem is the marketing here, we seem to agree that the iPhone sits in the high-end smartphone catagory (well it does on price anyway) and i have no doubt it is a decent phone, i have never said anything different, but it is lacking some features that i think are important to the UK market but other people think is not so important because of the segment the iPhone is being targeted at.
The problem is that who are Apple marketing to? Not me, and i am the kind of consumer who buys expensive technology and smartphones, i have a Mac Book Pro, i have HDTV, Apple TV, Hi-Def HDD camcorder etc.. etc.. like most people on here i am a gadget freak. I am a businessman and i have disposable income and should sit nicely in the target area for Apple to sell me a phone.
But the iPhone is not being marketed at me!! It for some reason is being marketed at the cool crowd, its the best iPod in the world, is got cover-flow, its got visual voicemail etc..
But what people like me want from a smartphone is 3G, decent SMS capability and MMS for ourselves but as the chances are my employer will be paying for the phone they want secure email, integration with exchange and enterprise apps. So everyone says the iPhone is being targeted at the smartphone market, but is it really?? The marketing i have seen so far for the iPhone seems more aimed that the level 3-4 customer, i.e. mid range 2&3G phones buyers, the kind of people who do not buy smartphones but like taking pictures, texting and MMS'ing and are starting to buy 3G phones.
The iPhone really seems stuck between the two and does not seem to know where it fits, so we end up with an under-featured 2G smartphone or an expensive fun phone and i wonder how big that market actually is?
You are basing that "far better" purely on hardware spec and not based on a comparison of someone who have used them to compare.
On a spec sheet a 5 mp camera looks a lot better than a 2 mp camera. But if that 5mp is comparatively more difficult to use, most people would be fine with the 2 mp that is comparatively easier to use.
Who cares if its higher resolution if you have to go through a bunch of submenus to take a quick shot with friends.
I think this consideration is being left out.
But that is not true, it depends on the phone. I have a year old Nokia here which is my "play" phone as i tend to leave my Blackberry in bars to often. When i want to take a pic i aim the camera and press the shutter, the SonyEriccsons do this as well.
Two clicks on a button and that photo is now in the inbox of a friend, you cannot get any simpler than that.
The picture was just an example. There are infinite others.
You are right it depends on the phone, and also true many phones are not easy to use. For most phones some functions are easy to get to while others are buried in sub-menus.
My point is that it cannot be a complete and fair comparison to look at a spec sheet to determine how good a phone is. One must actually use it and its functionality to determine which is better.
The picture was just an example. There are infinite others.
You are right it depends on the phone, and also true many phones are not easy to use. For most phones some functions are easy to get to while others are buried in sub-menus.
My point is that it cannot be a complete and fair comparison to look at a spec sheet to determine how good a phone is. One must actually use it and its functionality to determine which is better.
So when Steve Jobs declares it to be the best phone ever do you think he has used every other phone on the market just to be sure?
I can see where you are coming from, but the fact of the matter is we buy technology all the time without using it first. When you buy a phone you do not get a chance to try it out, you pick a phone purely on features/functionality and price as well as most importantly the perceived value for money you will get.
So comparing phones on functions and features is a fair thing to do, but you are right in what you say until you have lived with something for 6 months you cannot know for sure. After using the iPhone for 6months i might even declare it is the best phone ever, but that aint gonna happen because i will not be buying one becaue it does not pass the feature comparison test, Its a toughy!
I have not used one, no. .... and 10 years experience of working in the telco and mobile communications industry in the UK. You do not need to use a phone to know whether its features and functions are .....
Yeah, sure. Truly (honestly, I swear), no offense, but that just about says it all for me.
I think you don't quite understand because you have been in the industry for ten years, and you can't really see that your business model is being turned upside down. As far as the average user is concerned, your industry has been an arrogant disaster for many users, and Apple is upsetting that cart. I don't know whom in the industry you work for, but I am willing to bet it is not O2 or one of the other Apple partners such as Carphone Warehouse. (Btw, you must believe people like that in your industry are a bunch of idiots if your arguments are correct.)
Look, I am no prognosticator, but just an average user of (admittedly) some high-end technology. Having used it since Day 1 (and I am only speaking for myself), I have no doubt that this product will have much of your industry and its crappy business models on the run.
I think it will be a success in the UK in its current form. I say that as a user, not as an "industry insider."
.... the fact of the matter is we buy technology all the time without using it first. ....So comparing phones on functions and features is a fair thing to do, but you are right in what you say until you have lived with something for 6 months you cannot know for sure. .....
Yes, but we don't have the sense of certitude about something we've never used as you seem to. Especially when there is substantial empirical evidence to the contrary, from the US introduction: notwithstanding the fact that it might be an atavistic market by European standards, the darn thing sold more than any other similar product introduced in history! (Even bested the iPod, by a huge margin).
I suggest to know little about the UK mobile market if you beleive that SMS and MMS are forms of communcation for low-end phone buyers only!
Everybody texts, i have only had business "smart phones" for years now and i text all the time, i text clients i text colleagues, i send far more texts that i send emails and text people more often that i call them. That is just the way it is and i am not alone.
I think you said you owned a Blackberry. Let me get this: You own one so that you can send send "more texts than emails?" Makes no sense to me!
Text was needed -- and emerged in common use in the 1990s -- because we all had sad little cellphones with 10 tiny number keys. As the use of smartphones becomes more widespread, texting will become completely obsolete and antiquated. MMS will follow.
OK, perhaps I am wrong after all, and you're right -- the iPhone will bomb in the UK because, according to you, users are still stuck in a form of communication from the dark ages of telecom.
Text was needed -- and emerged in common use in the 1990s -- because we all had sad little cellphones with 10 tiny number keys. As the use of smartphones becomes more widespread, texting will become completely obsolete and antiquated. MMS will follow.
OK, perhaps I am wrong after all, and you're right -- the iPhone will bomb in the UK because, according to you, users are still stuck in a form of communication from the dark ages of telecom.
One thing you may be missing is that the Euros don't text because they're stuck in the "dark ages of telecom", they text because voice minutes over there are a LOT more expensive than they are in the US in general. \
Texting in place of short calls actually saves them a lot of money, and the practice has taken on a sort of inertia over there... it's just what they do.
There'd have to be an incredibly compelling reason for them to all of a sudden drop SMS and MMS entirely for email.
Comments
Mostly from the UK or Europe? Check.
- Internet user? Check.
- At least moderately tech-savvy or tech-aware? Check.
- Interested in the iPhone? Check.
.
- 99% male? Check.
- 75% < 25? Check
- Hang out a lot wasting time in forums like these? Check (
- Have any idea what an iPhone looks/feels like? Uncheck.
- Engadget trolls? (Probable) Check.
- Interested in iPhone? Who knows.
Also, there's likely a tremendous self-selection bias.
What i have been saying all along is that the iPhone is not a bad phone......
Just curious: How do you know? Have you used one a lot, or are you speculating?
When Apple release a phone that can be sold into the 4&5 segments then they may well be onto a winner but in the 2&3 segment there are already better and cheaper phones available and it remains to be seen how far the Apple brand can convince people to overlook the high cost and missing features of the iPhone.
You may have missed just about EVERYTHING about the targeting, segmenting, and positioning of this phone if you think that 4 & 5 are likely markets. Or even 3, for that matter. The iPhone is meant to be a better version of a "smart"phone. Smartphones are still a small market in Europe, but a growing one. So "2" is the only likely segment.
Apple's stated goal is to get 1% of the market share in the first year (or year and a half, whichever). Period. It is not to convert low-end mobile phone buyers whose main form of communication is SMS, MMS etc.
- Hang out a lot wasting time in forums like these? Check (
- Have any idea what an iPhone looks/feels like? Uncheck.
- Engadget trolls? (Probable) Check.
- Interested in iPhone? Who knows.
Also, there's likely a tremendous self-selection bias.
Honestly, no. If it'd been the jerk/poser crowd, or only Americans, I wouldn't have even brought them up.
If you read the comments, many seem to be from UKers who were honestly interested in the iPhone, knew about it, and were interested in a purchase. But were disappointed that all Steve served up was a warmed over 2.5G US iPhone.
Again, not really a stretch- Engadget was pretty much the place to be for live coverage.
.
The latest number I've seen have 478 million mobile phone users in Europe nearly 100% of the market. 45 million of those users are 3G subscribers, 9.4%.
Unfortunately, in the price segment the iPhone is competing in, most of the phones have 3G.
Also 3G penetration rates are very uneven in Europe. Very low in places like Eastern Europe, but much higher in 'rich' Western European countries such as Italy.
.
Honestly, no. If it'd been the jerk/poser crowd, or only Americans, I wouldn't have even brought them up.
If you read the comments, many seem to be from UKers who were honestly interested in the iPhone, knew about it, and were interested in a purchase. But were disappointed that all Steve served up was a warmed over 2.5G US iPhone.
Again, not really a stretch- Engadget was pretty much the place to be for live coverage.
.
I did read the comments. Carefully. Early this morning (east coast time), soon after the event. And, on a couple of other forums too. For instance, the tenor of comments in macrumors.com was not very different from those in engadget.com (you can easily check it, so I won't provide a link).
It sounded to me like a bunch of tech-y types who had hyperventilated themselves into a frenzy -- expecting 32GB (OK, 16GB) 3G phones that could sing and dance, and came with Beatles on iTunes and movie downloads in HD -- and felt deflated. Just as they should.
I stand by my comment that it is probably 99% male, and 75% < 25 (references to which you took out in your response). The larger point I am making is, forums like these and self-selected posters like you and I are not at all representative of the typical iPhone user or target segment.
I stand by my comment that it is probably 99% male, and 75% < 25 (references to which you took out in your response). The larger point I am making is, forums like these and self-selected posters like you and I are not at all representative of the typical iPhone user or target segment.
Again, I'd disagree with you on both points. The Engadget commenters (who showed up for the live coverage) did not appear to be the usual crowd, and even if they were, geeky tech-interested Internet users do appear to be the iPhone's target demographic. I mean, if they're not, who is? Should Apple be advertising at bowling alleys?
I also don't get why you'd think they weren't interested in the iPhone. They obviously cared enough to comment on a UK iPhone event during or immediately after it happened. Doesn't sound like something Casual Carl would do.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
.
Just curious: How do you know? Have you used one a lot, or are you speculating?
You may have missed just about EVERYTHING about the targeting, segmenting, and positioning of this phone if you think that 4 & 5 are likely markets. Or even 3, for that matter. The iPhone is meant to be a better version of a "smart"phone. Smartphones are still a small market in Europe, but a growing one. So "2" is the only likely segment.
Apple's stated goal is to get 1% of the market share in the first year (or year and a half, whichever). Period. It is not to convert low-end mobile phone buyers whose main form of communication is SMS, MMS etc.
I have not missed anything, if you read my post again you will see that is exactly what i said, the problem is that in the smartphone market we both agree that the iPhone is playing to there are far better phones available at cheaper prices and they are 3G making it very hard for Apple to compete in. Try reading posts properly before replying to them.
The reason why smartphones are the growing segment is enterprise driven, it is business who are buying smartphones. The high end Windows mobile phones and Blackberrys are being bought on business accounts. So while it is easy to understand why Apple have decided to launch their first phone into the more profitable high end segment it seems really stupid to not sell them to businesses.
All i said was that Apple would have got to 1% market share much quicker had they decided to start at the bottom end of the market.
Just curious: How do you know? Have you used one a lot, or are you speculating?
I have not used one, no. But i am not just speculating either, i am basing my knowledge purly on features / funcionality and price and 10 years experience of working in the telco and mobile communications industry in the UK. You do not need to use a phone to know whether its features and functions are suitable to the market it is being aimed at, this is what experience gives you.
It is not to convert low-end mobile phone buyers whose main form of communication is SMS, MMS etc.
I suggest to know little about the UK mobile market if you beleive that SMS and MMS are forms of communcation for low-end phone buyers only!
Everybody texts, i have only had business "smart phones" for years now and i text all the time, i text clients i text colleagues, i send far more texts that i send emails and text people more often that i call them. That is just the way it is and i am not alone.
I have not missed anything, if you read my post again you will see that is exactly what i said, the problem is that in the smartphone market we both agree that the iPhone is playing to there are far better phones available at cheaper prices and they are 3G making it very hard for Apple to compete in.
You are basing that "far better" purely on hardware spec and not based on a comparison of someone who have used them to compare.
On a spec sheet a 5 mp camera looks a lot better than a 2 mp camera. But if that 5mp is comparatively more difficult to use, most people would be fine with the 2 mp that is comparatively easier to use.
Who cares if its higher resolution if you have to go through a bunch of submenus to take a quick shot with friends.
I think this consideration is being left out.
The problem is the marketing here, we seem to agree that the iPhone sits in the high-end smartphone catagory (well it does on price anyway) and i have no doubt it is a decent phone, i have never said anything different, but it is lacking some features that i think are important to the UK market but other people think is not so important because of the segment the iPhone is being targeted at.
The problem is that who are Apple marketing to? Not me, and i am the kind of consumer who buys expensive technology and smartphones, i have a Mac Book Pro, i have HDTV, Apple TV, Hi-Def HDD camcorder etc.. etc.. like most people on here i am a gadget freak. I am a businessman and i have disposable income and should sit nicely in the target area for Apple to sell me a phone.
But the iPhone is not being marketed at me!! It for some reason is being marketed at the cool crowd, its the best iPod in the world, is got cover-flow, its got visual voicemail etc..
But what people like me want from a smartphone is 3G, decent SMS capability and MMS for ourselves but as the chances are my employer will be paying for the phone they want secure email, integration with exchange and enterprise apps. So everyone says the iPhone is being targeted at the smartphone market, but is it really?? The marketing i have seen so far for the iPhone seems more aimed that the level 3-4 customer, i.e. mid range 2&3G phones buyers, the kind of people who do not buy smartphones but like taking pictures, texting and MMS'ing and are starting to buy 3G phones.
The iPhone really seems stuck between the two and does not seem to know where it fits, so we end up with an under-featured 2G smartphone or an expensive fun phone and i wonder how big that market actually is?
You are basing that "far better" purely on hardware spec and not based on a comparison of someone who have used them to compare.
On a spec sheet a 5 mp camera looks a lot better than a 2 mp camera. But if that 5mp is comparatively more difficult to use, most people would be fine with the 2 mp that is comparatively easier to use.
Who cares if its higher resolution if you have to go through a bunch of submenus to take a quick shot with friends.
I think this consideration is being left out.
But that is not true, it depends on the phone. I have a year old Nokia here which is my "play" phone as i tend to leave my Blackberry in bars to often. When i want to take a pic i aim the camera and press the shutter, the SonyEriccsons do this as well.
Two clicks on a button and that photo is now in the inbox of a friend, you cannot get any simpler than that.
You are right it depends on the phone, and also true many phones are not easy to use. For most phones some functions are easy to get to while others are buried in sub-menus.
My point is that it cannot be a complete and fair comparison to look at a spec sheet to determine how good a phone is. One must actually use it and its functionality to determine which is better.
The picture was just an example. There are infinite others.
You are right it depends on the phone, and also true many phones are not easy to use. For most phones some functions are easy to get to while others are buried in sub-menus.
My point is that it cannot be a complete and fair comparison to look at a spec sheet to determine how good a phone is. One must actually use it and its functionality to determine which is better.
So when Steve Jobs declares it to be the best phone ever do you think he has used every other phone on the market just to be sure?
I can see where you are coming from, but the fact of the matter is we buy technology all the time without using it first. When you buy a phone you do not get a chance to try it out, you pick a phone purely on features/functionality and price as well as most importantly the perceived value for money you will get.
So comparing phones on functions and features is a fair thing to do, but you are right in what you say until you have lived with something for 6 months you cannot know for sure. After using the iPhone for 6months i might even declare it is the best phone ever, but that aint gonna happen because i will not be buying one becaue it does not pass the feature comparison test, Its a toughy!
I have not used one, no. .... and 10 years experience of working in the telco and mobile communications industry in the UK. You do not need to use a phone to know whether its features and functions are .....
Yeah, sure. Truly (honestly, I swear), no offense, but that just about says it all for me.
I think you don't quite understand because you have been in the industry for ten years, and you can't really see that your business model is being turned upside down. As far as the average user is concerned, your industry has been an arrogant disaster for many users, and Apple is upsetting that cart. I don't know whom in the industry you work for, but I am willing to bet it is not O2 or one of the other Apple partners such as Carphone Warehouse. (Btw, you must believe people like that in your industry are a bunch of idiots if your arguments are correct.)
Look, I am no prognosticator, but just an average user of (admittedly) some high-end technology. Having used it since Day 1 (and I am only speaking for myself), I have no doubt that this product will have much of your industry and its crappy business models on the run.
I think it will be a success in the UK in its current form. I say that as a user, not as an "industry insider."
.... the fact of the matter is we buy technology all the time without using it first. ....So comparing phones on functions and features is a fair thing to do, but you are right in what you say until you have lived with something for 6 months you cannot know for sure. .....
Yes, but we don't have the sense of certitude about something we've never used as you seem to. Especially when there is substantial empirical evidence to the contrary, from the US introduction: notwithstanding the fact that it might be an atavistic market by European standards, the darn thing sold more than any other similar product introduced in history! (Even bested the iPod, by a huge margin).
I suggest to know little about the UK mobile market if you beleive that SMS and MMS are forms of communcation for low-end phone buyers only!
Everybody texts, i have only had business "smart phones" for years now and i text all the time, i text clients i text colleagues, i send far more texts that i send emails and text people more often that i call them. That is just the way it is and i am not alone.
I think you said you owned a Blackberry. Let me get this: You own one so that you can send send "more texts than emails?" Makes no sense to me!
Text was needed -- and emerged in common use in the 1990s -- because we all had sad little cellphones with 10 tiny number keys. As the use of smartphones becomes more widespread, texting will become completely obsolete and antiquated. MMS will follow.
OK, perhaps I am wrong after all, and you're right -- the iPhone will bomb in the UK because, according to you, users are still stuck in a form of communication from the dark ages of telecom.
Text was needed -- and emerged in common use in the 1990s -- because we all had sad little cellphones with 10 tiny number keys. As the use of smartphones becomes more widespread, texting will become completely obsolete and antiquated. MMS will follow.
OK, perhaps I am wrong after all, and you're right -- the iPhone will bomb in the UK because, according to you, users are still stuck in a form of communication from the dark ages of telecom.
One thing you may be missing is that the Euros don't text because they're stuck in the "dark ages of telecom", they text because voice minutes over there are a LOT more expensive than they are in the US in general.
Texting in place of short calls actually saves them a lot of money, and the practice has taken on a sort of inertia over there... it's just what they do.
There'd have to be an incredibly compelling reason for them to all of a sudden drop SMS and MMS entirely for email.
.