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.
I'm actually gonna agree with you for once, Teno... one of the two big trump cards for the iPhone is the fact that it takes smartphone functionality and makes it easy for Joe Average to use. And that's something that's not really quantifiable in a spec sheet.
Unfortunately, the other big trump card for the iPhone is it's awesome web browsing. Which, unfortunately, will be semi-hosed by O2's slow EDGE network, and severely hosed by O2's more common 30 kpbs GPRS coverage.
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.
Do you think maybe you need a new retailer? Both times that I bought a new phone, I tried it out first, making a call home or whatever, went through the menus and so on. The retailer had activated phones, ready to use. It's not really a total solution, it's unrealistic to try everything, but at least it's important to at least try it first before buying.
Do you think maybe you need a new retailer? Both times that I bought a new phone, I tried it out first, making a call home or whatever, went through the menus and so on. The retailer had activated phones, ready to use. It's not really a total solution, it's unrealistic to try everything, but at least it's important to at least try it first before buying.
I think murph may be defining 'try it out' as actually being able to take it home first. Sure, you can play with phones in the store, but that doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know.
That's why things like the 30-day trial period are so important... you get to check out the network and the phone, to see if they're right for you. But that's the US, not sure what they let you do in the UK on that one.
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.
Texting aint going anywhere for a while yet, it is the simplest and easiest way to send a short message to anyone. And yes when i use my Blackberry and i want to message another persons phone i always SMS rather than email, and that is how people message me too. That is just how it works. Most phones now have an email client, but people still text, why?
If something is simple, if it works then people will not change, why should they? email is not better at phone to phone messaging than SMS or MMS, that is a fact. It is nothing to do with the dark ages, SMS is simply better at doing the job. Apart from my business friends and clients i fo not have a single friend who has their email set up on their phone, they have no need to. So the only way i can message them is SMS, if i had an iPhone i would be unable to MMS them a picture i just took - that is a backward step not a forward step dude.
In fact whenever i hear that statement i have to remind people that SMS was developed after email was, so if anyting is the older technology it is email!! Every phone i have had in the last 5 years at least has had an email client but the first time i ever sent an email from a phone was when i got my Blackberry and i only do that when i need to send or reply to "real" emails to peoples PC's.
I know things are different in the US, but this debate is all about the suitability of the iPhone for the UK.
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."
Let me make something clear, i no longer work in the mobile phone industry, i work in the Enterprise Communications industry now.
I would like to understand where this idea that Apple are upsetting the cart from? are you able to explain what Apple is actually doing to change the whole face of the mobile industry in Europe? And i really would like to understand the basis for your idea that the UK mobile industry has been am arrogant disaster? I cannot think of a single thing that would lead anyone to that conclusion.
Okay so the pricing models are sometimes unfair and expensive but that is the Governments fault, you see in 2000 when the 3G licences were auctioned off, the prices that the Government allowed the licences to sell for were astronomical, o2 paid $8 Billion dollars for theirs!! This money had to be got back somehow and the consumers are still paying for it.
So the difference is, under the traditional route you pick your phone, you sign up for a 12 or 18 month contract with the carrier of your choice ( 5 true national networks to choose from and countless virtuals - not bad for a little country ) and you walk away from the shop with a brand new high end handset and do not spend a bean. The cost of your handset is subsidised and you are stuck in a contract paying around 20-30 quid a month. But unlike the US, by law the networks must unlock your phone if asked and you can change networks if you want as long as the phone and contract is paid off.
But Apple have turned all that around have they? So what is different, of course, no subsidies, so you pay full price for your phone. But then that means you can have free choice over network? No of course not, you still have to sign up for a 18 month agreement with o2 !
So how is that so much better than before?
o2 are not the best network in the UK, they are not the biggest, they do not have the best coverage, why have Apple gone with them and not Orange or Vodafone?
That would be $8 billion (which I guess you meant).
It's just bizarre that O2 having invested so much in the 3G licence and the network infrastructure are having to spend more money to upgrade their 2G network for the iPhone. And presumably when they finally complete the upgrade and we get the dizzying EDGE data rates....the shiny new 3G iPhone2 will be out.
I agree with most of your points, though the "kids who just want a phone to talk, text and play music" might be a bit miffed when they learn there is no MMS.
It'd have to be a pretty rich parent to give them an iPhone on contract. Mine (11 and 12 year old) get a PAYG budget and once it's gone it's gone. I've seen them text through twenty quid in a day. They also go through phones at least every 6 months - smashed or just simply unfashionable.
They'll also be very miffed they can't shoot video, they can't 'bluetooth their friends' and they can't use any (annoying) song as a ringtone on an iPhone, which apart from texting seems to be the major use for a teenage girls phone.
I don't think it'll be selling to kids or if it does they'll very quickly go off it.
I think this is a big mistake from Apple to release it as it is. I mean after all that wait they are going to release the same one they had to put up with in the US? I dont think Jobs has researched the UK market at all. With the N5 8gb, F700, K850, W960 all round the corner, just how many of these does he expect to sell.
He should have been getting 3G in there as well as other things instead of looking for what network will make him the most money.
Thats why he needed the O2 guy to talk it up for him yesterday as he knows people in the UK arnt dumb and the iphone isnt going to sell itslef like it did in the US. They arnt going to go aout and commit to an 18 month contract with such little minutes and texts with a phone like this. Bad move MR Jobs.
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%. Smartphone adoption is about 9%, so both are around the same. So there still is a lot of room for growth.
Care to cite where you got those figures?
The GSM Association reckon there are nearly 800 million GSM phone users in Europe. It unfortunately doesn't break it down to 3G users in Europe.
That would be $8 billion (which I guess you meant).
It's just bizarre that O2 having invested so much in the 3G licence and the network infrastructure are having to spend more money to upgrade their 2G network for the iPhone. And presumably when they finally complete the upgrade and we get the dizzying EDGE data rates....the shiny new 3G iPhone2 will be out.
C.
heehee, yeh was $8 billion, bit of a difference there ;-)
I'm unsurprised by the lack of 3G. Furthermore, I couldn't care less, I think the Wi-Fi hotspots deal makes up for it as best they could - it seems o2 were constrained by Apple's inability (refusal) to get out a 3G iPhone.
What is amazing to me is the poor text/minutes provision for the price. Okay, so unlimited data is great, but it doesn't make up for the fact that I NEED to send text messages to people who don't have unlimited data in order to message through email. The minutes seem pretty lousy too, unless they give you the o2 "long weekend" unlimited weekends in there too.
It's the price plans and minutes, (yes, I know the data is great) that make this a probable no-no for me, unless o2 are willing to buy out my existing contract or something.
The november 9th release date is interesting too, I'm almost sure Apple is predicting some sort of hardware/price change by then; it seems a hell of a long time to wait. Surely distribution and preparation, even in all the carphone warehouse stores, wouldn't take nearly two months? There must be a pretty good reason why they're shortening the holiday shopping season window for iPhone sales..
What is amazing to me is the poor text/minutes provision for the price. Okay, so unlimited data is great, but it doesn't make up for the fact that I NEED to send text messages to people who don't have unlimited data in order to message through email. The minutes seem pretty lousy too, unless they give you the o2 "long weekend" unlimited weekends in there too.
I couldn't agree more! Having just looked at the O2 store, they are offering a SIM ONLY (and lets face it, the iPhone is not subsidised by contract so this is equivalent to buying an iPhone & O2 sim) for £15 / month that has 200 mins + 400 text.
This means the "unlimited data" bit of the iPhone is costing £20 / month and that's not taking into account 200 less text messages. I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing something completely obvious, that is an utter rip-off. Look at the other operators internet bundles - Vodafone £7.50 / month, T-Mobile web & walk I think is also £7.50 (correct me if I'm wrong!) so why on earth would an iPhone user have to pay almost 3 times as much???
PLUS The SIM at £15 / month has NO lengthy contract (although I can't see on the site how long the minimum period is, it's certainly not 18 months).
Much as I'd like one and can put up with a few limitations this just makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm in the market for a new (UK) phone now. Have been with Orange for 3 years and always been very happy with them. Currently have a SE K800i which is fine but the joystick is inevitably beginning to become a problem. I'd have liked Apple to do a deal with Orange, but I don't mind O2. They're the only UK service provider, of the big 4, I've not used and I'd only have been really turned off by Vodafone who I found dreadful.
BUT. I went to the Regent Street store today and tried the iPod touch. I liked it and it made me a little more certain that the technology in the iPhone was good and useful and something I'd like to use. However, my music collection (with podcasts - which I really like to ahve with me) is 14GB. Why have Apple not updated the iPhone to the 16GB of the iPod touch? It seems like a no brainer. 3G doesn't bother me too much. I live in London and imagine that if and when I do want to surf the web I'll be near a hotspot anyway. But why no 16GB model? You canc learly pack it into the case - see the iPod. It just amkes no sense. I could buy the iPhone now and not get all my music library and podcasts on it opr wait until version 2 and pack it all on. But I just can't understand why Apple had left it when the means are there already.
Worried about upsetting the early US adopters further?
You know what forget it im going to get an iphone. Ill just have to trust that im near a hotspot when im out and about and if not well the edge is free so it will do. Yay!!!!!!!
-- You pay upfront for the phone, no subsidy. If you don't want to sign a contract, too bad... no phone service for you. Not only that, but if you do want service, you have to sign up for 2 years.
What people actually want (and some carriers already do):
-- You pay upfront for the phone, no subsidy. You can now get phone service without a contract, since the contract only exists to pay off the phone subsidy.
There's kind of a huge difference between those two models. I don't think too many ppl are thinking Apple is doing us a big favor there. No subsidy, but you still require a contract? Urk.
.
This has beaten to death and yet it still doesn't seem to be common knowledge.
You can use the iPhone in US on AT&T's network and NOT sign a contract. No dirty hacks forced. No skullduggery needed.
But why no 16GB model? Worried about upsetting the early US adopters further?
I don't think that question will upset anyone. The only way to know the answer for sure is to sit in Apple's boardroom while they discuss future development of the iPhone.
My speculation is that its business strategy. It costs Apple less to ship 8GB than 16GB. If people are buying the 8 then there is little need to rush to sell 16. In the near future with hardware updates Apple will be able to reenergize sales with an update to 16.
So, £20 a month I suppose isn't too bad for O2 but as you noted, it's almost three times more expensive than the more competitive carriers like t-mobile.
Interesting. There's a couple of differences in stats there.
Firstly Europe isn't just the EU as far as the GSM Association is concerned in their stats. It's also true that some countries aren't as far down the path as others for 3G adoption. Italy is noted as 20% adoption.
It's also a year old data from Oct 2006.
I also wonder how much of the smartphone market isn't on 3G yet?
I don't think that question will upset anyone. The only way to know the answer for sure is to sit in Apple's boardroom while they discuss future development of the iPhone.
My speculation is that its business strategy. It costs Apple less to ship 8GB than 16GB. If people are buying the 8 then there is little need to rush to sell 16. In the near future with hardware updates Apple will be able to reenergize sales with an update to 16.
Also, a lot of the supply chain is in place, I'll bet. You can't just yank that chain in the middle of a production/sales cycle.
Comments
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.
I'm actually gonna agree with you for once, Teno... one of the two big trump cards for the iPhone is the fact that it takes smartphone functionality and makes it easy for Joe Average to use. And that's something that's not really quantifiable in a spec sheet.
Unfortunately, the other big trump card for the iPhone is it's awesome web browsing. Which, unfortunately, will be semi-hosed by O2's slow EDGE network, and severely hosed by O2's more common 30 kpbs GPRS coverage.
Anyone remember their old 28.8 modems? Augh.
.
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.
Do you think maybe you need a new retailer? Both times that I bought a new phone, I tried it out first, making a call home or whatever, went through the menus and so on. The retailer had activated phones, ready to use. It's not really a total solution, it's unrealistic to try everything, but at least it's important to at least try it first before buying.
Do you think maybe you need a new retailer? Both times that I bought a new phone, I tried it out first, making a call home or whatever, went through the menus and so on. The retailer had activated phones, ready to use. It's not really a total solution, it's unrealistic to try everything, but at least it's important to at least try it first before buying.
I think murph may be defining 'try it out' as actually being able to take it home first. Sure, you can play with phones in the store, but that doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know.
That's why things like the 30-day trial period are so important... you get to check out the network and the phone, to see if they're right for you. But that's the US, not sure what they let you do in the UK on that one.
.
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.
Texting aint going anywhere for a while yet, it is the simplest and easiest way to send a short message to anyone. And yes when i use my Blackberry and i want to message another persons phone i always SMS rather than email, and that is how people message me too. That is just how it works. Most phones now have an email client, but people still text, why?
If something is simple, if it works then people will not change, why should they? email is not better at phone to phone messaging than SMS or MMS, that is a fact. It is nothing to do with the dark ages, SMS is simply better at doing the job. Apart from my business friends and clients i fo not have a single friend who has their email set up on their phone, they have no need to. So the only way i can message them is SMS, if i had an iPhone i would be unable to MMS them a picture i just took - that is a backward step not a forward step dude.
In fact whenever i hear that statement i have to remind people that SMS was developed after email was, so if anyting is the older technology it is email!! Every phone i have had in the last 5 years at least has had an email client but the first time i ever sent an email from a phone was when i got my Blackberry and i only do that when i need to send or reply to "real" emails to peoples PC's.
I know things are different in the US, but this debate is all about the suitability of the iPhone for the UK.
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."
Let me make something clear, i no longer work in the mobile phone industry, i work in the Enterprise Communications industry now.
I would like to understand where this idea that Apple are upsetting the cart from? are you able to explain what Apple is actually doing to change the whole face of the mobile industry in Europe? And i really would like to understand the basis for your idea that the UK mobile industry has been am arrogant disaster? I cannot think of a single thing that would lead anyone to that conclusion.
Okay so the pricing models are sometimes unfair and expensive but that is the Governments fault, you see in 2000 when the 3G licences were auctioned off, the prices that the Government allowed the licences to sell for were astronomical, o2 paid $8 Billion dollars for theirs!! This money had to be got back somehow and the consumers are still paying for it.
So the difference is, under the traditional route you pick your phone, you sign up for a 12 or 18 month contract with the carrier of your choice ( 5 true national networks to choose from and countless virtuals - not bad for a little country ) and you walk away from the shop with a brand new high end handset and do not spend a bean. The cost of your handset is subsidised and you are stuck in a contract paying around 20-30 quid a month. But unlike the US, by law the networks must unlock your phone if asked and you can change networks if you want as long as the phone and contract is paid off.
But Apple have turned all that around have they? So what is different, of course, no subsidies, so you pay full price for your phone. But then that means you can have free choice over network? No of course not, you still have to sign up for a 18 month agreement with o2 !
So how is that so much better than before?
o2 are not the best network in the UK, they are not the biggest, they do not have the best coverage, why have Apple gone with them and not Orange or Vodafone?
That would be $8 billion (which I guess you meant).
It's just bizarre that O2 having invested so much in the 3G licence and the network infrastructure are having to spend more money to upgrade their 2G network for the iPhone. And presumably when they finally complete the upgrade and we get the dizzying EDGE data rates....the shiny new 3G iPhone2 will be out.
C.
I agree with most of your points, though the "kids who just want a phone to talk, text and play music" might be a bit miffed when they learn there is no MMS.
It'd have to be a pretty rich parent to give them an iPhone on contract. Mine (11 and 12 year old) get a PAYG budget and once it's gone it's gone. I've seen them text through twenty quid in a day. They also go through phones at least every 6 months - smashed or just simply unfashionable.
They'll also be very miffed they can't shoot video, they can't 'bluetooth their friends' and they can't use any (annoying) song as a ringtone on an iPhone, which apart from texting seems to be the major use for a teenage girls phone.
I don't think it'll be selling to kids or if it does they'll very quickly go off it.
He should have been getting 3G in there as well as other things instead of looking for what network will make him the most money.
Thats why he needed the O2 guy to talk it up for him yesterday as he knows people in the UK arnt dumb and the iphone isnt going to sell itslef like it did in the US. They arnt going to go aout and commit to an 18 month contract with such little minutes and texts with a phone like this. Bad move MR Jobs.
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%. Smartphone adoption is about 9%, so both are around the same. So there still is a lot of room for growth.
Care to cite where you got those figures?
The GSM Association reckon there are nearly 800 million GSM phone users in Europe. It unfortunately doesn't break it down to 3G users in Europe.
http://www.gsmworld.com/news/statist...tats_q1_07.pdf
Quote: o2 paid $8million dollars for theirs!!
That would be $8 billion (which I guess you meant).
It's just bizarre that O2 having invested so much in the 3G licence and the network infrastructure are having to spend more money to upgrade their 2G network for the iPhone. And presumably when they finally complete the upgrade and we get the dizzying EDGE data rates....the shiny new 3G iPhone2 will be out.
C.
heehee, yeh was $8 billion, bit of a difference there ;-)
What is amazing to me is the poor text/minutes provision for the price. Okay, so unlimited data is great, but it doesn't make up for the fact that I NEED to send text messages to people who don't have unlimited data in order to message through email. The minutes seem pretty lousy too, unless they give you the o2 "long weekend" unlimited weekends in there too.
It's the price plans and minutes, (yes, I know the data is great) that make this a probable no-no for me, unless o2 are willing to buy out my existing contract or something.
The november 9th release date is interesting too, I'm almost sure Apple is predicting some sort of hardware/price change by then; it seems a hell of a long time to wait. Surely distribution and preparation, even in all the carphone warehouse stores, wouldn't take nearly two months? There must be a pretty good reason why they're shortening the holiday shopping season window for iPhone sales..
What is amazing to me is the poor text/minutes provision for the price. Okay, so unlimited data is great, but it doesn't make up for the fact that I NEED to send text messages to people who don't have unlimited data in order to message through email. The minutes seem pretty lousy too, unless they give you the o2 "long weekend" unlimited weekends in there too.
I couldn't agree more! Having just looked at the O2 store, they are offering a SIM ONLY (and lets face it, the iPhone is not subsidised by contract so this is equivalent to buying an iPhone & O2 sim) for £15 / month that has 200 mins + 400 text.
This means the "unlimited data" bit of the iPhone is costing £20 / month and that's not taking into account 200 less text messages. I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing something completely obvious, that is an utter rip-off. Look at the other operators internet bundles - Vodafone £7.50 / month, T-Mobile web & walk I think is also £7.50 (correct me if I'm wrong!) so why on earth would an iPhone user have to pay almost 3 times as much???
PLUS The SIM at £15 / month has NO lengthy contract (although I can't see on the site how long the minimum period is, it's certainly not 18 months).
BUT. I went to the Regent Street store today and tried the iPod touch. I liked it and it made me a little more certain that the technology in the iPhone was good and useful and something I'd like to use. However, my music collection (with podcasts - which I really like to ahve with me) is 14GB. Why have Apple not updated the iPhone to the 16GB of the iPod touch? It seems like a no brainer. 3G doesn't bother me too much. I live in London and imagine that if and when I do want to surf the web I'll be near a hotspot anyway. But why no 16GB model? You canc learly pack it into the case - see the iPod. It just amkes no sense. I could buy the iPhone now and not get all my music library and podcasts on it opr wait until version 2 and pack it all on. But I just can't understand why Apple had left it when the means are there already.
Worried about upsetting the early US adopters further?
Um... here's what Apple is doing, last I heard:
-- You pay upfront for the phone, no subsidy. If you don't want to sign a contract, too bad... no phone service for you. Not only that, but if you do want service, you have to sign up for 2 years.
What people actually want (and some carriers already do):
-- You pay upfront for the phone, no subsidy. You can now get phone service without a contract, since the contract only exists to pay off the phone subsidy.
There's kind of a huge difference between those two models. I don't think too many ppl are thinking Apple is doing us a big favor there. No subsidy, but you still require a contract? Urk.
.
This has beaten to death and yet it still doesn't seem to be common knowledge.
You can use the iPhone in US on AT&T's network and NOT sign a contract. No dirty hacks forced. No skullduggery needed.
Care to cite where you got those figures?
3G.co.uk
But why no 16GB model? Worried about upsetting the early US adopters further?
I don't think that question will upset anyone. The only way to know the answer for sure is to sit in Apple's boardroom while they discuss future development of the iPhone.
My speculation is that its business strategy. It costs Apple less to ship 8GB than 16GB. If people are buying the 8 then there is little need to rush to sell 16. In the near future with hardware updates Apple will be able to reenergize sales with an update to 16.
PLUS The SIM at £15 / month has NO lengthy contract (although I can't see on the site how long the minimum period is, it's certainly not 18 months).
It's 30 days in advance to cancel. ie. you pay £15 a month and you may end up paying for 2 months maximum if you cancel.
O2's data plans were always expensive. See http://www.o2.co.uk/mobilestariffs/t...umerdatabolton
Their Business data was pretty bad too.
So, £20 a month I suppose isn't too bad for O2 but as you noted, it's almost three times more expensive than the more competitive carriers like t-mobile.
3G.co.uk
Interesting. There's a couple of differences in stats there.
Firstly Europe isn't just the EU as far as the GSM Association is concerned in their stats. It's also true that some countries aren't as far down the path as others for 3G adoption. Italy is noted as 20% adoption.
It's also a year old data from Oct 2006.
I also wonder how much of the smartphone market isn't on 3G yet?
The GSM Association reckon there are nearly 800 million GSM phone users in Europe. It unfortunately doesn't break it down to 3G users in Europe.
http://www.gsmworld.com/news/statist...tats_q1_07.pdf
Hmmm..... considering the population of ALL of Europe is 700 million or so, how can they have 800 million GSM users?!
3G.co.uk
I don't think that question will upset anyone. The only way to know the answer for sure is to sit in Apple's boardroom while they discuss future development of the iPhone.
My speculation is that its business strategy. It costs Apple less to ship 8GB than 16GB. If people are buying the 8 then there is little need to rush to sell 16. In the near future with hardware updates Apple will be able to reenergize sales with an update to 16.
Also, a lot of the supply chain is in place, I'll bet. You can't just yank that chain in the middle of a production/sales cycle.