Paper specs mean nothing. The actual image means more. "Presumably" means nothing. Sony slaps Zeiss lenses on a lot of their products, but that alone doesn't make the product any good.
You can give the market big megapixels in a phone, but that's still not giving the market a good camera. More would actually be worse for most phones.
I agree, but it just doesn't matter. Because your average buyer peruses a spec sheet, and decides from there.
I know its the 'Megahertz Myth' all over again, but there it is, for good or ill. \
Contrast with Apple iPhone. Available in June with 4 and 8 GB versions. In January, a 16 GB version. In Summer, likely a 3G version, maybe a totally different model. Depending on how you count, that's 3 versions of the iPhone, maybe 4 if you count the 4 GB, within a year.
I dunno... simply changing the storage capacity and nothing else doesn't feel like a whole new model.
I mean, geez, you're kinda doing the same thing by sticking a microSD card in your phone. Though yes, I know, having more INTERNAL storage means that the possible total storage (internal + external) is higher. Still... meh. 'iPhone 2.0' is the 3G iPhone, period.
Quote:
I still contend that Apple is ok with the European sales. They are a very US centric company afterall.
No. Not if their '10 million sold in 2008' goal means anything to them, and all indications are that it does. The US alone won't get them 10 million sales in '08 (plus we're entering a recession), though I guess one can pretend so if they drink enough of the Apple Kool-Aid and follow it with a whiskey chaser (or three).
Quote:
Like in other threads, in the USA, the camera function hasn't become driving feature. It's cultural. I'd argue MMS is the same way.
I'd agree that camera and MMS matter more in Europe, but to say that it doesn't matter in the US would be inaccurate. But, if you want better sales in Europe, and I'm sure Apple does, you address the MMS and camera issues, along with 3G.
Quote:
However, what is passable functionality for people is quite a subjective thing. It can really be argued that most people won't take any better pictures with an SE or a Nokia when compared to an iPhone. Most people may not even be able to tell the difference. Even with point-n-shoots, most people take such crappy pictures that a person with an iPhone may take the same quality photos. If so, the importance of a higher quality camera isn't that big.
That's likely true, up to a point. But it doesn't matter. People buy on perceived quality, for good or ill, and the main way the average person determines that is specs.
It may be that the iPhone camera is not all that much worse than the camera on most competing high-end phones for most ppl in most situations-- but if it looks much worse on paper, yah, that's not good, particularly in Europe.
Quote:
I'd also argue digital point-and-shoots don't take better pictures than film point-and-shoots. Just not there yet in low light or difficult lighting conditions, which seems the vast majority of times, but that's a different forum.
I've heard that too, and have no reason to doubt it. Lots of talented filmmakers/directors have yet to make the switch to digital, and quality is the #1 thing they bring up in citing why.
Teno, the point was the 6500 is 9.5mm thin, has a 2mp camera, flash and 3G and it's as big as a 2G nano. It's a middle of the road phone here. The fact it doesn't have a big screen is an ADVANTAGE. It's supposed to be small, in the same way nanos are and I guess you'd be one of the guys complaining they can't fit 160gb of video on it.
If Nokia can do those specs in something that small, why can't Apple in something whose volume is probably 4x that of the 6500? Answer is 'they can' but as THT pointed out, they were too US centric to look at what people outside the USA want from a phone. We get a stock ticker here for instance still. Does anyone in the UK outside of the city of london care?
(on a side note, wtf do I need an ESPN widget for and why no hash key on the keyboard?)
The Viewty is also smaller than the iPhone. It's slightly thicker by 2mm around the lens but that's the only place. It does have a ridiculous lens for a phone but it's supposed to be also a cracking camera too. They're selling it to people who do indeed go on holiday and just take the phone. Any wedding I've been to in the last few years has been pretty bereft of cameras and apart from the wedding photographer and me, there's rarely even a PAS never mind a (D)SLR.
Hi, I just got an iPhone on Monday and am really happy with the device. What do you think will happen in terms of an ugrade to the 3G iPhone? Is that a possibility? Otherwise it would be kind of annoying having to wait 18 months to get the new iphone...
I dunno... simply changing the storage capacity and nothing else doesn't feel like a whole new model.
I mean, geez, you're kinda doing the same thing by sticking a microSD card in your phone. Though yes, I know, having more INTERNAL storage means that the possible total storage (internal + external) is higher. Still... meh. 'iPhone 2.0' is the 3G iPhone, period.
So what do you call a revision that simply changes the data band support to work in a specific country? Is that a new model? Is the N96 really the N95 2.0 in your parlance then? It doesn't matter to me. My contention is the perception that cell phone companies release new models every few months. Within 1 model, that really doesn't happen, and Apple just have 1 model.
Quote:
No. Not if their '10 million sold in 2008' goal means anything to them, and all indications are that it does. The US alone won't get them 10 million sales in '08 (plus we're entering a recession), though I guess one can pretend so if they drink enough of the Apple Kool-Aid and follow it with a whiskey chaser (or three).
Sure it can. It's called reducing the price of the iPhone. Reducing the price of monthly service. Introducing a new and more models. Selling the iPhone in more countries.
Quote:
I'd agree that camera and MMS matter more in Europe, but to say that it doesn't matter in the US would be inaccurate. But, if you want better sales in Europe, and I'm sure Apple does, you address the MMS and camera issues, along with 3G.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I said it wasn't that big of a driver. It matters less in the USA than it does in Europe. Heck, I've assumed that it matters in Europe, but I wonder if that is really true. The fact that Nokia, SE, et al are selling nice camera phones doesn't mean that camera functions are really driving sales. (Correlation does not equal Causation).
Lastly, if Apple wants better sales in Europe, it's not necessarily features. It's the cost of the phone itself, and the cost of the monthly service. By making those two costs in Europe comparable to what it is in the USA ($399 and $60 respectively, before tax), it can certainly generate more sales. These two are the biggest drivers for the saleability of the iPhone.
Quote:
That's likely true, up to a point. But it doesn't matter. People buy on perceived quality, for good or ill, and the main way the average person determines that is specs.
It may be that the iPhone camera is not all that much worse than the camera on most competing high-end phones for most ppl in most situations-- but if it looks much worse on paper, yah, that's not good, particularly in Europe.
I'll agree with the perception that more is better and its effect on sales. However, I don't agree that it is necessary for the iPhone to become a camera phone or a point-n-shoot replacement. The iPhone's reason for existance is usability/fun to use in terms of calling functions, music/video functions, and Internet functions. It doesn't have to have the best camera function. Just merely adequate.
You're contending that's a mistake. Well, I really don't think so. It's the cost of iPhone ownership that drive its sales in Europe. I really don't think the camera is that big of a deal.
I never said I thought Apple would wait 2 years. I speculated why they would. But I do understand some things now, I did not understand as well last year.
No, but you said they "could" wait 2 years to go 3G, which obviously would be a very poor decision.
I am glad to see, however, that you're capable of changing your mind when presented with new information. If you were in politics you'd be labeled a 'flip-flopper', but I'd say that being able to modify your point of view in light of new evidence is one of the signs of a sound intellect.
Quote:
Placing Carl Zeiss on a camera phone is more marketing fluff than anything. There isn't much Zeiss can do better than others with such a tiny lens.
...Any one who looks at megpixels as the sole measurement of camera capability have no true understanding of how digital cameras work.
And... it just doesn't matter. Sure, you and I may not look at megapixels or other features (such as video capture) and being 'end-all, be-alls', but your typical phone buyer does. For good or ill, Apple does have to worry about how bad the iPhone looks on a spec sheet. '2.0 megapixel camera and no vid capture' simply looks bad against '5.0 megapixel camera WITH video capture.' You may know that it's not that cut-and-dried, but a great many propsective iPhone buyers do not. We can complain about that, but it doesn't change the fact.
Quote:
You are confused because you have a one track mind. 3G won't help the iPod at all. iPod sales forecast will impact the stock more than the iPhone or 3G.
It's more like I'm confused because the point made wasn't a very good one... namely that only products that are a high percentage of a company's revenue affect the stock price.
But that's not how investors think. They look at NEW products that have the potential to GROW a company's revenues. The iPhone is such a product, and was much of the reason why Apple's stock got bid up to $200 not long ago. The iPod? Great product, but year-over-year revenues for it have been flat or nearly so recently. Not much of a perceived growth story there, though you could argue that the iPod Touch will eventually change all that. Still, that's not the popular investor perception right now... they're like, "Okay, SHOW me."
Investors are still stuck on the iPhone growth story though, and are rewarding/punishing Apple's stock in large part based on that. And why wouldn't they be? Jobs himself announced it as one of Apple's three major businesses. For example, if a 3G iPhone were to be announced as coming out next week, would the stock jump, A LOT? You bet it would. Conversely, if Jobs came out and said, "No 3G iPhone 'til 2009", would the stock dive? Yep, it would. And all that would be happening with a product that last quarter was "only" about 10% of Apple's revenues.
So, its not just a product's absolute share of the current revenue pie. It's also what the product is seen as doing for a company going forward. I think the iPhone has the potential to eventually be as huge for Apple as the iPod has been... IF Apple executes correctly.
Quote:
Some calculated iPhone revenue at 3% because we have a better idea of how much Apple made from sales of the device. Its only speculation how much Apple has made from carrier revenue sharing.
Well, either that, or "some" are just very bad at math.
2.3 million iPhone sold in calendar Q4 at $400 a pop (more in Europe) is close to $1 billion, even WITHOUT revenue sharing. Apple's revenue in Q4 was $9.6 billion. If close to $1 billion out of $9.6 billion in revenue sounds like 3% to YOU, then you are smoking something powerful that you should've offered to share with me. Shame on you, Teno.
Quote:
One chip will not be able to produce the dynamic range and sharpness that the electronics in a dedicated point and shoot is able to produce.
Again, it just doesn't matter. The real question is not whether the iPhone's camera is as good as a dedicated camera, but whether or not it's perceived as being competitive with the cameras offered in competing products... which for the iPhone are OTHER HIGH-END PHONES, *not* dedicated digital cameras.
So what do you call a revision that simply changes the data band support to work in a specific country? Is that a new model? Is the N96 really the N95 2.0 in your parlance then? It doesn't matter to me. My contention is the perception that cell phone companies release new models every few months. Within 1 model, that really doesn't happen, and Apple just have 1 model.
Well, it looks like they did a bit more to the N96 than simply up the storage. I'd still call it only a minor revision though:
What's new to [the N96] is the 16GB internal memory, 950 mAh battery, ability to use flash while video recording, microUSB, and Flash Lite 3 enabled web browser.
In any case, what ppl were pointing out is that the cellphone world moves rapidly, with frequent model revisions. Perhaps not every '3 to 6 months' as someone stated, but every year for sure, and often faster than that? Yes, I'd say that's accurate. I'd peg model revs at every 6 to 12 months for most models most of the time. Aegis may have some added perspective here, regarding the Euro market.
Quote:
Sure it can. It's called reducing the price of the iPhone. Reducing the price of monthly service. Introducing a new and more models. Selling the iPhone in more countries.
How does "selling the iPhone in more countries" equal Apple selling 10 million iPhones in the US in '08, which is what we were discussing??
Sure, a price cut would help US sales, as would the intro of a 3G model, and I expect both. But Apple choosing to sell through only one carrier in the US, plus the fact that we're entering a recession makes 10 million sales in the US in 2008 quite the pie-in-the-sky goal. Heck, many analysts believe that its going to be a major challenge for Apple to sell 10 million iPhones worldwide in '08, and I tend to agree. They can do it, but they're going to have to execute.
Quote:
I didn't say it didn't matter. I said it wasn't that big of a driver. It matters less in the USA than it does in Europe. Heck, I've assumed that it matters in Europe, but I wonder if that is really true. The fact that Nokia, SE, et al are selling nice camera phones doesn't mean that camera functions are really driving sales. (Correlation does not equal Causation).
I'd call the camera one of the significant factors in the buying decision, and moreso in Europe than the US. You buy a high-end phone, you expect high-end features, and a good ('for a phone') camera is one of them. Is it at the top of the list? For most I'd say no, but its something you definitely look at. I don't think our perceptions are that far apart here.
Quote:
Lastly, if Apple wants better sales in Europe, it's not necessarily features. It's the cost of the phone itself, and the cost of the monthly service. By making those two costs in Europe comparable to what it is in the USA ($399 and $60 respectively, before tax), it can certainly generate more sales. These two are the biggest drivers for the saleability of the iPhone.
Price certainly matters, though I don't think Apple can make the Euro iPhone the same price as the US model, due to the taxes over there. But Apple has already taken steps to make the plans more competitive, as they did with O2 already.
But price is only half the battle. Some features obviously DO matter... I think you'd have to be pretty tone-deaf not to hear the repeated cries for 3G from the Euros over the past few months. Ditto MMS, really.
Quote:
I'll agree with the perception that more is better and its effect on sales.
Good to hear. There are some that deny even that.
Quote:
However, I don't agree that it is necessary for the iPhone to become a camera phone or a point-n-shoot replacement. The iPhone's reason for existance is usability/fun to use in terms of calling functions, music/video functions, and Internet functions. It doesn't have to have the best camera function. Just merely adequate.
Yep, and I'd define "adequate" as being comparable on a specs sheet to the phones the iPhone is competing with. As you yourself say, "I'll agree with the perception that more is better and its effect on sales."
Quote:
You're contending that's a mistake. Well, I really don't think so. It's the cost of iPhone ownership that drive its sales in Europe. I really don't think the camera is that big of a deal.
2.0 MP and no video recording just looks bad on a phone as expensive and hyped as the iPhone. Not as bad as no 3G does to the Euros, but it does matter some. If the next iPhone is similarly spec'd, I think it'll be pretty disappointing to anyone who cares even moderately about the camera and/or video functionality of their high-end phone.
The REAL QUESTION is, is someone going to buy an iPHONE or A COMPETING HIGH END CELLPHONE... and is the iPHONE's specs-poor camera a further strike against it?
'specs-poor' is the right word. While the iPhone's specs don't look very impressive, I've gotten usable pictures from my iPhone - something I could never say about my Nokia which had equivalent specs.
It should be about the result, not the specs.
My question is whether 3G will be expected to improve the sound quality and reduce the number of dropped calls. That's my biggest gripe about the iPhone.
Lastly, if Apple wants better sales in Europe, it's not necessarily features. It's the cost of the phone itself, and the cost of the monthly service. By making those two costs in Europe comparable to what it is in the USA ($399 and $60 respectively, before tax), it can certainly generate more sales. These two are the biggest drivers for the saleability of the iPhone.
Oh that's so, so wrong.
The problem with the iPhone pricing is that it very much IS comparable with the USA, give or take the usual Apple markup for Europe and our taxes. Even the tariffs looked like piss poor US copies when they first launched here.
The problem is it has to be comparitively priced to European competitors. The O2 tariffs are almost reasonable now. The up front cost however is frankly rediculous when there's not a phone you can't get for free with a similar tariff. It's way, way out of line. Still, I'd probably still pay that and the O2 tariff is passable, Apple geek that I am.
Then there's the feature comparison, which in Europe is starkly off what we're used to and what the networks provide. Remember we didn't have EDGE here before the iPhone. The nice UI doesn't make up for the missing software and hardware for me.
And that's why many people I know are waiting for their second attempt.
My question is whether 3G will be expected to improve the sound quality and reduce the number of dropped calls. That's my biggest gripe about the iPhone.
That's a really good question. ATT's GSM network is widely regarded as being mediocre, which is what you're encountering. However, ATT's 3G (HSDPA), unlike Verizon and Sprint's 3G (EVDO), handles not only data but voice as well. And 3G has a higher voice capacity than GSM (in part because it uses a better technology [CDMA] for the air interface).
So, if you are within ATT's 3G coverage area, it's possible that you'll see better voice performance and fewer dropped calls with a 3G iPhone... that's my understanding, anyway. But I think someone like Electric Monk or Aegis might be able to talk about this from a position of greater experience, since they actually use 3G for voice, I believe (I don't, currently).
Teno, the point was the 6500 is 9.5mm thin, has a 2mp camera, flash and 3G and it's as big as a 2G nano. It's a middle of the road phone here. The fact it doesn't have a big screen is an ADVANTAGE. It's supposed to be small, in the same way nanos are and I guess you'd be one of the guys complaining they can't fit 160gb of video on it.
Well, TenoBell did qualify that statement with "in the Viewty or Nokia N95." And the 6500 Classic does not have a camera like in the Viewty or the N95. Also, the Nokia 6500 Classic isn't the size of the 2G iPod nano. Dimensions:
iPod nano 2G: 90 x 40 x 6.5 mm, 23.4 cm^3
6500 classic: 109.8 x 45 x 9.5 mm, 47 cm^3
iPhone: 115 x 61 mm x 11.6 mm, 81.4 cm^3
So, the iPod nano 2G is 2x as small as the 6500 classic. That aint trivial. The 6500 classic is also almost as long as the iPhone. They also left off a microSD slot, but included 1 GB of flash, which is not a 1 for 1 trade in volume.
Quote:
If Nokia can do those specs in something that small, why can't Apple in something whose volume is probably 4x that of the 6500?
Almost twice the volume. Not 4x. The iPhone has a 3.5 inch screen with tremendous brightness. The battery and the screen basically take up all of the room in the middle while the phone PCBs are at the top (2 boards stacked) and the bottom are the antennas, mic and speakers, iPod connector, etc.
Adding an LED flash is probably possible in the current factor, but they chose not to.
Quote:
The Viewty is also smaller than the iPhone. It's slightly thicker by 2mm around the lens but that's the only place.
The quoted thickness (14.8mm) for the Viewty is for the body and does not include the protrusion for the camera lens. The Viewty actually has more volume than the iPhone.
If Nokia can do those specs in something that small, why can't Apple in something whose volume is probably 4x that of the 6500? Answer is 'they can' but as THT pointed out, they were too US centric to look at what people outside the USA want from a phone. We get a stock ticker here for instance still. Does anyone in the UK outside of the city of london care?
The problem with the iPhone pricing is that it very much IS comparable with the USA, give or take the usual Apple markup for Europe and our taxes. Even the tariffs looked like piss poor US copies when they first launched here.
The 8 GB iPhone costs 269 lb no? That's $540! I'm pretty sure we don't have 30% sales tax here. We're mostly 6 to 9% sales tax. The UK 16 GB is $660. The 35 lb monthly service is reasonable. It seems short on SMS messages though.
Quote:
The problem is it has to be comparitively priced to European competitors. The O2 tariffs are almost reasonable now. The up front cost however is frankly rediculous when there's not a phone you can't get for free with a similar tariff. It's way, way out of line. Still, I'd probably still pay that and the O2 tariff is passable, Apple geek that I am.
I'm fairly ok with the iPhone at "full" price sales strategy. But I definitely think the vector for sales is the monthly service costs. Unlimited EDGE plus whatever minutes/SMS for say 25 to 30 lb would be interesting to see. Obviously, when the HSPA version comes out, unlimited HSPA has to be on the low side as well.
Quote:
Then there's the feature comparison, which in Europe is starkly off what we're used to and what the networks provide. Remember we didn't have EDGE here before the iPhone. The nice UI doesn't make up for the missing software and hardware for me.
And that's why many people I know are waiting for their second attempt.
I can certainly understand the lack of EDGE in Europe as a driving factor for low iPhone sales. Then again, I can help but think Apple expected it.
And... it just doesn't matter. Sure, you and I may not look at megapixels or other features (such as video capture) and being 'end-all, be-alls', but your typical phone buyer does. For good or ill, Apple does have to worry about how bad the iPhone looks on a spec sheet. '2.0 megapixel camera and no vid capture' simply looks bad against '5.0 megapixel camera WITH video capture.' You may know that it's not that cut-and-dried, but a great many propsective iPhone buyers do not. We can complain about that, but it doesn't change the fact.
I don't agree that Apple should plan its products around consumer ignorance.
Quote:
But that's not how investors think. They look at NEW products that have the potential to GROW a company's revenues. The iPhone is such a product, and was much of the reason why Apple's stock got bid up to $200 not long ago.
The iPhone was part of the reason. Selling higher revenue 2 million Mac's in a quarter is more what did it.
Quote:
The iPod? Great product, but year-over-year revenues for it have been flat or nearly so recently.
That is not true year over year profits grew 17%
Quote:
Investors are still stuck on the iPhone growth story though, and are rewarding/punishing Apple's stock in large part based on that.
Show us a quote from a major investor or analyst who says iPhone sales are the reason stock went down.
Quote:
Again, it just doesn't matter. The real question is not whether the iPhone's camera is as good as a dedicated camera, but whether or not it's perceived as being competitive with the cameras offered in competing products... which for the iPhone are OTHER HIGH-END PHONES, *not* dedicated digital cameras.
Show me any major tech website that takes the iPhone to task for having a 2MP camera. Or anyone who seriously cares about photo quality from from phones.
Well, it looks like they did a bit more to the N96 than simply up the storage. I'd still call it only a minor revision though:
What's new to [the N96] is the 16GB internal memory, 950 mAh battery, ability to use flash while video recording, microUSB, and Flash Lite 3 enabled web browser.
So, would you call the "N96" a N95 2.0? Or is it really just the N95-5? What would constitute a revised iPhone, the iPhone 2.0? And do other phone lines have the same revision cycle?
Quote:
In any case, what ppl were pointing out is that the cellphone world moves rapidly, with frequent model revisions. Perhaps not every '3 to 6 months' as someone stated, but every year for sure, and often faster than that? Yes, I'd say that's accurate. I'd peg model revs at every 6 to 12 months for most models most of the time. Aegis may have some added perspective here, regarding the Euro market.
So, what's the contention? If the iPhone gets an HSPA revision in the Summer, that makes essentially 3 minor revisions within a year in your parlance. We can argue that it isn't the case if Apple doesn't come out with a revised iPhone by Summer, but the odds are pretty good they will.
Quote:
How does "selling the iPhone in more countries" equal Apple selling 10 million iPhones in the US in '08, which is what we were discussing??
Just ignore that part of the sentence.
Quote:
Sure, a price cut would help US sales, as would the intro of a 3G model, and I expect both. But Apple choosing to sell through only one carrier in the US, plus the fact that we're entering a recession makes 10 million sales in the US in 2008 quite the pie-in-the-sky goal. Heck, many analysts believe that its going to be a major challenge for Apple to sell 10 million iPhones worldwide in '08, and I tend to agree. They can do it, but they're going to have to execute.
I do agree they have to execute. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
Quote:
I'd call the camera one of the significant factors in the buying decision, and moreso in Europe than the US. You buy a high-end phone, you expect high-end features, and a good ('for a phone') camera is one of them. Is it at the top of the list? For most I'd say no, but its something you definitely look at. I don't think our perceptions are that far apart here.
It's the features that one values most. There's always tradeoffs in what a product will have. You want a camera phone. I don't think Apple intends the iPhone to be a camera phone. Maybe they will, but obviously not today.
Quote:
Price certainly matters, though I don't think Apple can make the Euro iPhone the same price as the US model, due to the taxes over there. But Apple has already taken steps to make the plans more competitive, as they did with O2 already.
But price is only half the battle. Some features obviously DO matter... I think you'd have to be pretty tone-deaf not to hear the repeated cries for 3G from the Euros over the past few months. Ditto MMS, really.
I'm fairly confident that price or cost of ownership is more than half the battle, otherwise cheap cell phones and basic service wouldn't constitute the vast majority of what people have. Aegis himself said one big barrier to iPhone sales in the UK is the fact that other high end phones can be had for cheaper or free. (And obviously, cheap or free aint Apple).
The features just need to be good for what the iPhone is designed to do. Other features such as the camera are thrown in to provide basic functionality. I mean, if Apple was really serious about the iPhone being a good "phone", I'd like to have 3 or 4 speakers, 2 or 3 microphones, and better amp, filtering, shielding on the audio circuitry; but that's probably out of the scope of a cell phone. They seem really serious about the iPhone being a really good Internet thingy though.
Quote:
Yep, and I'd define "adequate" as being comparable on a specs sheet to the phones the iPhone is competing with. As you yourself say, "I'll agree with the perception that more is better and its effect on sales."
So, if I'm looking for multimedia phone and I see the iPhone's 3.5" screen and compared to the N95-3/4's 2.8" screen or the Viewty's 3" screen, I'm calling the latter 2 losers. If I'm looking for a camera phone, well, it's obvious one should choose one of the latter 2. Does Apple have to compete and try to get camera phone customers? No.
Quote:
2.0 MP and no video recording just looks bad on a phone as expensive and hyped as the iPhone. Not as bad as no 3G does to the Euros, but it does matter some. If the next iPhone is similarly spec'd, I think it'll be pretty disappointing to anyone who cares even moderately about the camera and/or video functionality of their high-end phone.
I'm perfectly fine with it. I want it for the basic phone use, Internet, music and video. I'm waiting for HSPA, 16+ GB myself; not to mention my other barrier of entry, but the spouse is beside the point. Having a camera around isn't that important to me. Certainly having a better camera isn't a better tradeoff than the Internet browsing capability or a larger screen for video viewing.
The key is what does the majority of consumers want; or what does the target market want and can they sell enough. The cellphone market is big enough to support gigantic submarkets, so I don't think it is a huge issue for Apple not to have a featuritis phone.
I don't agree that Apple should plan its products around consumer ignorance.
They already do, and have for many years. For example, megahertz has mattered to Apple a lot through the years, even though we all know that how much work actually gets done per clock cycle matters more.
And what you'd call "consumer ignorance", the Apple marketing team would likely term "consumer reality".
Quote:
The iPhone was part of the reason. Selling higher revenue 2 million Mac's in a quarter is more what did it.
Change that to "the iPhone was a big part of the reason", and you'll just about have it.
Quote:
That is not true year over year profits grew 17%
We were talking about revenues, Teno. You do understand the difference between revenues and profits, correct?
Quote:
Show us a quote from a major investor or analyst who says iPhone sales are the reason stock went down.
I could, and you know I'm very good at digging up such quotes, but... why bother? Nearly everyone I've talked to understands this but you. iPhone sales were not the sole reason why the stock took a dump (the economy sure hurt too) but they were a big part of it. The 'iPhone growth story' was overhyped, at least in the near term, and now we're paying for it. That's really a "Duh" as far as the investor picture goes.
Quote:
Show me any major tech website that takes the iPhone to task for having a 2MP camera. Or anyone who seriously cares about photo quality from from phones.
I don't think it much matters, considering more ppl look at specs than read specific reviews on even the biggest tech sites, like CNET or Engadget.
Still, if it makes you feel better, I Google'd around for about 60 seconds and saw that Ars Technica called the iPhone out for missing camera and video features, though to be fair they found the camera to be "acceptable" (a ringing endorsement for any cutting-edge phone, to be sure):
Some major downsides to the iPhone's camera abilities are that it doesn't have support for digital zoom like most cameras do, and it has no setting for night photos (even the RAZR has both of these capabilities). Therefore, the iPhone can only take very limited photos in dim lighting and almost no photos whatsoever when it gets downright "dark."
Another glaring omission is the lack of video capabilities in the iPhone's camera: something that many very basic (and much cheaper) handsets can do. If Apple wants this to be a full-fledged multimedia device, adding video capabilities almost seems crucial.
Oh, and the Tech section of the London Times Online did notice the lack of megapixels:
The camera is only 2 megapixels, far fewer than the best 'camera-centric' phones, but the image is perfectly clear, if a little troubled by low light.
But of course, what really matters is word-of-mouth. This YouTube video (with nearly 200,000 views) made me wince, but it's largely true:
Anyways, why so defensive about the camera, Teno? Odds are Apple probably will fix it on the 3G iPhone, unless Jobs had too many three-martini lunches during the planning meetings.
So, would you call the "N96" a N95 2.0? Or is it really just the N95-5? What would constitute a revised iPhone, the iPhone 2.0? And do other phone lines have the same revision cycle?
Well, considering that you somehow forgot to include the part of my quote where I said the N96 was a minor revision to the N95, I think you got the answer to the first of your questions already.
And in an earlier post I already stated that the iPhone 2.0 = the 3G iPhone, period. So you've already been answered there as well.
Do other phone lines have the same revision cycle? If by that you mean that all phones should be held to the same standard as far as what constitutes a minor or major revision, I would agree with that.
Quote:
So, what's the contention? If the iPhone gets an HSPA revision in the Summer, that makes essentially 3 minor revisions within a year in your parlance. We can argue that it isn't the case if Apple doesn't come out with a revised iPhone by Summer, but the odds are pretty good they will.
There's no contention, I was simply agreeing with other folks who stated that model revisions occur frequently in the cell phone market. They do. But I wouldn't call an HSDPA (3G) revision to the iPhone "minor" by any means, as you do above.
The iPhone storage revisions? They're certainly minor, as nothing else was changed.
Quote:
Just ignore that part of the sentence.
Ah, okay.
Quote:
I do agree they have to execute. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
Yup. But no amount of execution gets them 10 million iPhone sales in the US alone in '08, however. To meet their goal, they're going to have to get significant sales in Europe and Asia. And I think they can, unless they are very slow on getting a 3G iPhone out and/or are incredibly inflexible on pricing.
Quote:
It's the features that one values most. There's always tradeoffs in what a product will have. You want a camera phone. I don't think Apple intends the iPhone to be a camera phone. Maybe they will, but obviously not today.
Actually, the iPhone is already a camera phone, since it has a camera. I guess you mean a phone with a good camera... for a phone. And yes, I think that would help, considering that at the iPhone's high price point, ppl might reasonably expect something like a good camera, plus video capture, a flash, autofocus, etc.
Far as Apple's intentions go, perhaps you are right, and Apple thought it could skate by with the current camera specs. But, what does that prove? Apple also thought it could skate by in Europe with 2.5G and high pricing and do fine. But that hasn't really worked out too well.
Quote:
I'm fairly confident that price or cost of ownership is more than half the battle, otherwise cheap cell phones and basic service wouldn't constitute the vast majority of what people have.
Cost of ownership is important, but only if your feature set isn't a deal-breaker to begin with. Apple could lower the price of the iPhone considerably, but if they keep it at 2.5G, it still won't sell well in Europe. Not to mention Japan and Korea, where they're launching later this year.
Quote:
So, if I'm looking for multimedia phone and I see the iPhone's 3.5" screen and compared to the N95-3/4's 2.8" screen or the Viewty's 3" screen, I'm calling the latter 2 losers.
I think there are a lot of ppl whose buying decision was influenced by the iPhone having a very large screen. And frankly, I'm surprised Apple hasn't made more hay about it in its ads... they seem to think that simply showing the screen is enough, even though showing it side by side with its competitors screens would be quite a coup.
But I guess Apple feels that showing its competitors at all in the commercials would be doing its competition a favor.
Quote:
If I'm looking for a camera phone, well, it's obvious one should choose one of the latter 2. Does Apple have to compete and try to get camera phone customers? No.
Apple doesn't have to do anything, but if they want to sell more iPhones, and I think they do, they do have to worry about how the iPhone looks versus its competition.
Quote:
I'm perfectly fine with it.
I'm happy to hear that. But I'm not worried about you, as you are not the market.
Quote:
The key is what does the majority of consumers want; or what does the target market want and can they sell enough. The cellphone market is big enough to support gigantic submarkets, so I don't think it is a huge issue for Apple not to have a featuritis phone.
I don't think the iPhone needs to have every single possible cellphone feature under the sun... if I did, I'd be saying, "Where's the FM radio? Where's the flashlight?". But I'm not saying that.
What I am saying is that it's logical to be at least on par (or close) with your competition in the features that a significant chunk of the high-end cellphone market actually cares about. 3G would be one of those features. MMS? Yes, ppl expect it. A camera with good specs, video recording, flash, autofocus? At this (high) pricepoint... yep.
You may not see it that way, and I respect your opinion. But frankly, I think Apple was a bit surprised at the iPhone's fairly poor reception in Europe, and is now realizing what it really takes to compete there (not to mention Asia). Thus, I think we will see some significant spec bumps and feature adds to the iPhone's camera/video capabilities in the 3G iPhone... not to mention elsewhere.
And if they do that, it will simply be a wise competitive move, not 'featuritis'. But if you see FM radio capability or a flashlight on the 3G iPhone, then you can call featuritis. And I will join you.
The 8 GB iPhone costs 269 lb no? That's $540! I'm pretty sure we don't have 30% sales tax here. We're mostly 6 to 9% sales tax. The UK 16 GB is $660. The 35 lb monthly service is reasonable. It seems short on SMS messages though.
It's £269 (not lb, lb is a pound in weight, not currency) which is £228.94 before sales tax, or roughly $455. The 16GB is £280+tax or roughly $557. That's about normal for Apple. They never give us quite the US price. It's possible the difference is import tax being higher in the UK too, not just sales tax. Still, it's no great issue. Remember, our prices are always quoted including all taxes.
The monthly tariffs are reasonable now. They weren't when they launched here. They're about 5 times better than they were. The only problem really being that the base tariff is £35 and you can't get £15 or £25 tariffs which suit many more people than the higher tariffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
I'm fairly ok with the iPhone at "full" price sales strategy. But I definitely think the vector for sales is the monthly service costs. Unlimited EDGE plus whatever minutes/SMS for say 25 to 30 lb would be interesting to see. Obviously, when the HSPA version comes out, unlimited HSPA has to be on the low side as well.
The upfront cost is unsual. Usually if you pay that much upfront, you expect a short contract or cheaper tariff. If you got the current £35 contract for £25 and paid £269 for the handset it'd be almost competitively priced. Apple are charging a premium for it's logo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
I can certainly understand the lack of EDGE in Europe as a driving factor for low iPhone sales. Then again, I can help but think Apple expected it.
Maybe. Maybe they just didn't have a 3G phone ready but thought they could at least sell a few hundred thousand 2G phones in the meantime to people who aren't as tech savvy. Coupling it to very expensive contracts though seems like a mistake they should have expected would fail. Still, at least O2 UK seem to have narrowed that problem. I can't help but think they've screwed up in Ireland though. That's even worse than we had in the UK at launch.
ok, it just felt about the same size as my nano in the shop, my mistake. My point was more that there are small, thin phones with 3G, with a reasonable camera, with a flash and decent battery life. There's no technical reason why Apple couldn't put that all in an iPhone which is quite a large phone. The Nokia 6500 in fact would make a pretty hot template for an 'iPhone Nano' except replace the keypad with a touch screen and allow it to be used in landscape mode to type. It's a nice size whereas I find the iPhone a little too big.
Comments
Paper specs mean nothing. The actual image means more. "Presumably" means nothing. Sony slaps Zeiss lenses on a lot of their products, but that alone doesn't make the product any good.
You can give the market big megapixels in a phone, but that's still not giving the market a good camera. More would actually be worse for most phones.
I agree, but it just doesn't matter. Because your average buyer peruses a spec sheet, and decides from there.
I know its the 'Megahertz Myth' all over again, but there it is, for good or ill.
.
Contrast with Apple iPhone. Available in June with 4 and 8 GB versions. In January, a 16 GB version. In Summer, likely a 3G version, maybe a totally different model. Depending on how you count, that's 3 versions of the iPhone, maybe 4 if you count the 4 GB, within a year.
I dunno... simply changing the storage capacity and nothing else doesn't feel like a whole new model.
I mean, geez, you're kinda doing the same thing by sticking a microSD card in your phone.
I still contend that Apple is ok with the European sales. They are a very US centric company afterall.
No. Not if their '10 million sold in 2008' goal means anything to them, and all indications are that it does. The US alone won't get them 10 million sales in '08 (plus we're entering a recession), though I guess one can pretend so if they drink enough of the Apple Kool-Aid and follow it with a whiskey chaser (or three).
Like in other threads, in the USA, the camera function hasn't become driving feature. It's cultural. I'd argue MMS is the same way.
I'd agree that camera and MMS matter more in Europe, but to say that it doesn't matter in the US would be inaccurate. But, if you want better sales in Europe, and I'm sure Apple does, you address the MMS and camera issues, along with 3G.
However, what is passable functionality for people is quite a subjective thing. It can really be argued that most people won't take any better pictures with an SE or a Nokia when compared to an iPhone. Most people may not even be able to tell the difference. Even with point-n-shoots, most people take such crappy pictures that a person with an iPhone may take the same quality photos.
That's likely true, up to a point. But it doesn't matter. People buy on perceived quality, for good or ill, and the main way the average person determines that is specs.
It may be that the iPhone camera is not all that much worse than the camera on most competing high-end phones for most ppl in most situations-- but if it looks much worse on paper, yah, that's not good, particularly in Europe.
I'd also argue digital point-and-shoots don't take better pictures than film point-and-shoots. Just not there yet in low light or difficult lighting conditions, which seems the vast majority of times, but that's a different forum.
I've heard that too, and have no reason to doubt it. Lots of talented filmmakers/directors have yet to make the switch to digital, and quality is the #1 thing they bring up in citing why.
.
Do you know that for certain, and if so, how? Have you researched the iPhone teardowns in great detail or something?
iPhone tear downs aren't difficult to find. Its easy to compare Viewty and N95 specs and dimensions. They aren't anything the same as the iPhone.
If Nokia can do those specs in something that small, why can't Apple in something whose volume is probably 4x that of the 6500? Answer is 'they can' but as THT pointed out, they were too US centric to look at what people outside the USA want from a phone. We get a stock ticker here for instance still. Does anyone in the UK outside of the city of london care?
(on a side note, wtf do I need an ESPN widget for and why no hash key on the keyboard?)
The Viewty is also smaller than the iPhone. It's slightly thicker by 2mm around the lens but that's the only place. It does have a ridiculous lens for a phone but it's supposed to be also a cracking camera too. They're selling it to people who do indeed go on holiday and just take the phone. Any wedding I've been to in the last few years has been pretty bereft of cameras and apart from the wedding photographer and me, there's rarely even a PAS never mind a (D)SLR.
I dunno... simply changing the storage capacity and nothing else doesn't feel like a whole new model.
I mean, geez, you're kinda doing the same thing by sticking a microSD card in your phone.
So what do you call a revision that simply changes the data band support to work in a specific country? Is that a new model? Is the N96 really the N95 2.0 in your parlance then? It doesn't matter to me. My contention is the perception that cell phone companies release new models every few months. Within 1 model, that really doesn't happen, and Apple just have 1 model.
No. Not if their '10 million sold in 2008' goal means anything to them, and all indications are that it does. The US alone won't get them 10 million sales in '08 (plus we're entering a recession), though I guess one can pretend so if they drink enough of the Apple Kool-Aid and follow it with a whiskey chaser (or three).
Sure it can. It's called reducing the price of the iPhone. Reducing the price of monthly service. Introducing a new and more models. Selling the iPhone in more countries.
I'd agree that camera and MMS matter more in Europe, but to say that it doesn't matter in the US would be inaccurate. But, if you want better sales in Europe, and I'm sure Apple does, you address the MMS and camera issues, along with 3G.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I said it wasn't that big of a driver. It matters less in the USA than it does in Europe. Heck, I've assumed that it matters in Europe, but I wonder if that is really true. The fact that Nokia, SE, et al are selling nice camera phones doesn't mean that camera functions are really driving sales. (Correlation does not equal Causation).
Lastly, if Apple wants better sales in Europe, it's not necessarily features. It's the cost of the phone itself, and the cost of the monthly service. By making those two costs in Europe comparable to what it is in the USA ($399 and $60 respectively, before tax), it can certainly generate more sales. These two are the biggest drivers for the saleability of the iPhone.
That's likely true, up to a point. But it doesn't matter. People buy on perceived quality, for good or ill, and the main way the average person determines that is specs.
It may be that the iPhone camera is not all that much worse than the camera on most competing high-end phones for most ppl in most situations-- but if it looks much worse on paper, yah, that's not good, particularly in Europe.
I'll agree with the perception that more is better and its effect on sales. However, I don't agree that it is necessary for the iPhone to become a camera phone or a point-n-shoot replacement. The iPhone's reason for existance is usability/fun to use in terms of calling functions, music/video functions, and Internet functions. It doesn't have to have the best camera function. Just merely adequate.
You're contending that's a mistake. Well, I really don't think so. It's the cost of iPhone ownership that drive its sales in Europe. I really don't think the camera is that big of a deal.
I never said I thought Apple would wait 2 years. I speculated why they would. But I do understand some things now, I did not understand as well last year.
No, but you said they "could" wait 2 years to go 3G, which obviously would be a very poor decision.
I am glad to see, however, that you're capable of changing your mind when presented with new information. If you were in politics you'd be labeled a 'flip-flopper', but I'd say that being able to modify your point of view in light of new evidence is one of the signs of a sound intellect.
Placing Carl Zeiss on a camera phone is more marketing fluff than anything. There isn't much Zeiss can do better than others with such a tiny lens.
...Any one who looks at megpixels as the sole measurement of camera capability have no true understanding of how digital cameras work.
And... it just doesn't matter. Sure, you and I may not look at megapixels or other features (such as video capture) and being 'end-all, be-alls', but your typical phone buyer does. For good or ill, Apple does have to worry about how bad the iPhone looks on a spec sheet. '2.0 megapixel camera and no vid capture' simply looks bad against '5.0 megapixel camera WITH video capture.' You may know that it's not that cut-and-dried, but a great many propsective iPhone buyers do not. We can complain about that, but it doesn't change the fact.
You are confused because you have a one track mind. 3G won't help the iPod at all. iPod sales forecast will impact the stock more than the iPhone or 3G.
It's more like I'm confused because the point made wasn't a very good one... namely that only products that are a high percentage of a company's revenue affect the stock price.
But that's not how investors think. They look at NEW products that have the potential to GROW a company's revenues. The iPhone is such a product, and was much of the reason why Apple's stock got bid up to $200 not long ago. The iPod? Great product, but year-over-year revenues for it have been flat or nearly so recently. Not much of a perceived growth story there, though you could argue that the iPod Touch will eventually change all that. Still, that's not the popular investor perception right now... they're like, "Okay, SHOW me."
Investors are still stuck on the iPhone growth story though, and are rewarding/punishing Apple's stock in large part based on that. And why wouldn't they be? Jobs himself announced it as one of Apple's three major businesses. For example, if a 3G iPhone were to be announced as coming out next week, would the stock jump, A LOT? You bet it would. Conversely, if Jobs came out and said, "No 3G iPhone 'til 2009", would the stock dive? Yep, it would. And all that would be happening with a product that last quarter was "only" about 10% of Apple's revenues.
So, its not just a product's absolute share of the current revenue pie. It's also what the product is seen as doing for a company going forward. I think the iPhone has the potential to eventually be as huge for Apple as the iPod has been... IF Apple executes correctly.
Some calculated iPhone revenue at 3% because we have a better idea of how much Apple made from sales of the device. Its only speculation how much Apple has made from carrier revenue sharing.
Well, either that, or "some" are just very bad at math.
2.3 million iPhone sold in calendar Q4 at $400 a pop (more in Europe) is close to $1 billion, even WITHOUT revenue sharing. Apple's revenue in Q4 was $9.6 billion. If close to $1 billion out of $9.6 billion in revenue sounds like 3% to YOU, then you are smoking something powerful that you should've offered to share with me. Shame on you, Teno.
One chip will not be able to produce the dynamic range and sharpness that the electronics in a dedicated point and shoot is able to produce.
Again, it just doesn't matter. The real question is not whether the iPhone's camera is as good as a dedicated camera, but whether or not it's perceived as being competitive with the cameras offered in competing products... which for the iPhone are OTHER HIGH-END PHONES, *not* dedicated digital cameras.
.
So what do you call a revision that simply changes the data band support to work in a specific country? Is that a new model? Is the N96 really the N95 2.0 in your parlance then? It doesn't matter to me. My contention is the perception that cell phone companies release new models every few months. Within 1 model, that really doesn't happen, and Apple just have 1 model.
Well, it looks like they did a bit more to the N96 than simply up the storage. I'd still call it only a minor revision though:
What's new to [the N96] is the 16GB internal memory, 950 mAh battery, ability to use flash while video recording, microUSB, and Flash Lite 3 enabled web browser.
In any case, what ppl were pointing out is that the cellphone world moves rapidly, with frequent model revisions. Perhaps not every '3 to 6 months' as someone stated, but every year for sure, and often faster than that? Yes, I'd say that's accurate. I'd peg model revs at every 6 to 12 months for most models most of the time. Aegis may have some added perspective here, regarding the Euro market.
Sure it can. It's called reducing the price of the iPhone. Reducing the price of monthly service. Introducing a new and more models. Selling the iPhone in more countries.
How does "selling the iPhone in more countries" equal Apple selling 10 million iPhones in the US in '08, which is what we were discussing??
Sure, a price cut would help US sales, as would the intro of a 3G model, and I expect both. But Apple choosing to sell through only one carrier in the US, plus the fact that we're entering a recession makes 10 million sales in the US in 2008 quite the pie-in-the-sky goal. Heck, many analysts believe that its going to be a major challenge for Apple to sell 10 million iPhones worldwide in '08, and I tend to agree. They can do it, but they're going to have to execute.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I said it wasn't that big of a driver. It matters less in the USA than it does in Europe. Heck, I've assumed that it matters in Europe, but I wonder if that is really true. The fact that Nokia, SE, et al are selling nice camera phones doesn't mean that camera functions are really driving sales. (Correlation does not equal Causation).
I'd call the camera one of the significant factors in the buying decision, and moreso in Europe than the US. You buy a high-end phone, you expect high-end features, and a good ('for a phone') camera is one of them. Is it at the top of the list? For most I'd say no, but its something you definitely look at. I don't think our perceptions are that far apart here.
Lastly, if Apple wants better sales in Europe, it's not necessarily features. It's the cost of the phone itself, and the cost of the monthly service. By making those two costs in Europe comparable to what it is in the USA ($399 and $60 respectively, before tax), it can certainly generate more sales. These two are the biggest drivers for the saleability of the iPhone.
Price certainly matters, though I don't think Apple can make the Euro iPhone the same price as the US model, due to the taxes over there. But Apple has already taken steps to make the plans more competitive, as they did with O2 already.
But price is only half the battle. Some features obviously DO matter... I think you'd have to be pretty tone-deaf not to hear the repeated cries for 3G from the Euros over the past few months. Ditto MMS, really.
I'll agree with the perception that more is better and its effect on sales.
Good to hear. There are some that deny even that.
However, I don't agree that it is necessary for the iPhone to become a camera phone or a point-n-shoot replacement. The iPhone's reason for existance is usability/fun to use in terms of calling functions, music/video functions, and Internet functions. It doesn't have to have the best camera function. Just merely adequate.
Yep, and I'd define "adequate" as being comparable on a specs sheet to the phones the iPhone is competing with. As you yourself say, "I'll agree with the perception that more is better and its effect on sales."
You're contending that's a mistake. Well, I really don't think so. It's the cost of iPhone ownership that drive its sales in Europe. I really don't think the camera is that big of a deal.
2.0 MP and no video recording just looks bad on a phone as expensive and hyped as the iPhone. Not as bad as no 3G does to the Euros, but it does matter some. If the next iPhone is similarly spec'd, I think it'll be pretty disappointing to anyone who cares even moderately about the camera and/or video functionality of their high-end phone.
.
The REAL QUESTION is, is someone going to buy an iPHONE or A COMPETING HIGH END CELLPHONE... and is the iPHONE's specs-poor camera a further strike against it?
'specs-poor' is the right word. While the iPhone's specs don't look very impressive, I've gotten usable pictures from my iPhone - something I could never say about my Nokia which had equivalent specs.
It should be about the result, not the specs.
My question is whether 3G will be expected to improve the sound quality and reduce the number of dropped calls. That's my biggest gripe about the iPhone.
Lastly, if Apple wants better sales in Europe, it's not necessarily features. It's the cost of the phone itself, and the cost of the monthly service. By making those two costs in Europe comparable to what it is in the USA ($399 and $60 respectively, before tax), it can certainly generate more sales. These two are the biggest drivers for the saleability of the iPhone.
Oh that's so, so wrong.
The problem with the iPhone pricing is that it very much IS comparable with the USA, give or take the usual Apple markup for Europe and our taxes. Even the tariffs looked like piss poor US copies when they first launched here.
The problem is it has to be comparitively priced to European competitors. The O2 tariffs are almost reasonable now. The up front cost however is frankly rediculous when there's not a phone you can't get for free with a similar tariff. It's way, way out of line. Still, I'd probably still pay that and the O2 tariff is passable, Apple geek that I am.
Then there's the feature comparison, which in Europe is starkly off what we're used to and what the networks provide. Remember we didn't have EDGE here before the iPhone. The nice UI doesn't make up for the missing software and hardware for me.
And that's why many people I know are waiting for their second attempt.
It should be about the result, not the specs.
I agree. But, sadly, it isn't.
My question is whether 3G will be expected to improve the sound quality and reduce the number of dropped calls. That's my biggest gripe about the iPhone.
That's a really good question. ATT's GSM network is widely regarded as being mediocre, which is what you're encountering. However, ATT's 3G (HSDPA), unlike Verizon and Sprint's 3G (EVDO), handles not only data but voice as well. And 3G has a higher voice capacity than GSM (in part because it uses a better technology [CDMA] for the air interface).
So, if you are within ATT's 3G coverage area, it's possible that you'll see better voice performance and fewer dropped calls with a 3G iPhone... that's my understanding, anyway. But I think someone like Electric Monk or Aegis might be able to talk about this from a position of greater experience, since they actually use 3G for voice, I believe (I don't, currently).
.
Teno, the point was the 6500 is 9.5mm thin, has a 2mp camera, flash and 3G and it's as big as a 2G nano. It's a middle of the road phone here. The fact it doesn't have a big screen is an ADVANTAGE. It's supposed to be small, in the same way nanos are and I guess you'd be one of the guys complaining they can't fit 160gb of video on it.
Well, TenoBell did qualify that statement with "in the Viewty or Nokia N95." And the 6500 Classic does not have a camera like in the Viewty or the N95. Also, the Nokia 6500 Classic isn't the size of the 2G iPod nano. Dimensions:
iPod nano 2G: 90 x 40 x 6.5 mm, 23.4 cm^3
6500 classic: 109.8 x 45 x 9.5 mm, 47 cm^3
iPhone: 115 x 61 mm x 11.6 mm, 81.4 cm^3
So, the iPod nano 2G is 2x as small as the 6500 classic. That aint trivial. The 6500 classic is also almost as long as the iPhone. They also left off a microSD slot, but included 1 GB of flash, which is not a 1 for 1 trade in volume.
If Nokia can do those specs in something that small, why can't Apple in something whose volume is probably 4x that of the 6500?
Almost twice the volume. Not 4x. The iPhone has a 3.5 inch screen with tremendous brightness. The battery and the screen basically take up all of the room in the middle while the phone PCBs are at the top (2 boards stacked) and the bottom are the antennas, mic and speakers, iPod connector, etc.
Adding an LED flash is probably possible in the current factor, but they chose not to.
The Viewty is also smaller than the iPhone. It's slightly thicker by 2mm around the lens but that's the only place.
The quoted thickness (14.8mm) for the Viewty is for the body and does not include the protrusion for the camera lens. The Viewty actually has more volume than the iPhone.
If Nokia can do those specs in something that small, why can't Apple in something whose volume is probably 4x that of the 6500? Answer is 'they can' but as THT pointed out, they were too US centric to look at what people outside the USA want from a phone. We get a stock ticker here for instance still. Does anyone in the UK outside of the city of london care?
THT basically said what i would have said.
Oh that's so, so wrong.
The problem with the iPhone pricing is that it very much IS comparable with the USA, give or take the usual Apple markup for Europe and our taxes. Even the tariffs looked like piss poor US copies when they first launched here.
The 8 GB iPhone costs 269 lb no? That's $540! I'm pretty sure we don't have 30% sales tax here. We're mostly 6 to 9% sales tax. The UK 16 GB is $660. The 35 lb monthly service is reasonable. It seems short on SMS messages though.
The problem is it has to be comparitively priced to European competitors. The O2 tariffs are almost reasonable now. The up front cost however is frankly rediculous when there's not a phone you can't get for free with a similar tariff. It's way, way out of line. Still, I'd probably still pay that and the O2 tariff is passable, Apple geek that I am.
I'm fairly ok with the iPhone at "full" price sales strategy. But I definitely think the vector for sales is the monthly service costs. Unlimited EDGE plus whatever minutes/SMS for say 25 to 30 lb would be interesting to see. Obviously, when the HSPA version comes out, unlimited HSPA has to be on the low side as well.
Then there's the feature comparison, which in Europe is starkly off what we're used to and what the networks provide. Remember we didn't have EDGE here before the iPhone. The nice UI doesn't make up for the missing software and hardware for me.
And that's why many people I know are waiting for their second attempt.
I can certainly understand the lack of EDGE in Europe as a driving factor for low iPhone sales. Then again, I can help but think Apple expected it.
And... it just doesn't matter. Sure, you and I may not look at megapixels or other features (such as video capture) and being 'end-all, be-alls', but your typical phone buyer does. For good or ill, Apple does have to worry about how bad the iPhone looks on a spec sheet. '2.0 megapixel camera and no vid capture' simply looks bad against '5.0 megapixel camera WITH video capture.' You may know that it's not that cut-and-dried, but a great many propsective iPhone buyers do not. We can complain about that, but it doesn't change the fact.
I don't agree that Apple should plan its products around consumer ignorance.
But that's not how investors think. They look at NEW products that have the potential to GROW a company's revenues. The iPhone is such a product, and was much of the reason why Apple's stock got bid up to $200 not long ago.
The iPhone was part of the reason. Selling higher revenue 2 million Mac's in a quarter is more what did it.
The iPod? Great product, but year-over-year revenues for it have been flat or nearly so recently.
That is not true year over year profits grew 17%
Investors are still stuck on the iPhone growth story though, and are rewarding/punishing Apple's stock in large part based on that.
Show us a quote from a major investor or analyst who says iPhone sales are the reason stock went down.
Again, it just doesn't matter. The real question is not whether the iPhone's camera is as good as a dedicated camera, but whether or not it's perceived as being competitive with the cameras offered in competing products... which for the iPhone are OTHER HIGH-END PHONES, *not* dedicated digital cameras.
Show me any major tech website that takes the iPhone to task for having a 2MP camera. Or anyone who seriously cares about photo quality from from phones.
Well, it looks like they did a bit more to the N96 than simply up the storage. I'd still call it only a minor revision though:
What's new to [the N96] is the 16GB internal memory, 950 mAh battery, ability to use flash while video recording, microUSB, and Flash Lite 3 enabled web browser.
So, would you call the "N96" a N95 2.0? Or is it really just the N95-5? What would constitute a revised iPhone, the iPhone 2.0? And do other phone lines have the same revision cycle?
In any case, what ppl were pointing out is that the cellphone world moves rapidly, with frequent model revisions. Perhaps not every '3 to 6 months' as someone stated, but every year for sure, and often faster than that? Yes, I'd say that's accurate. I'd peg model revs at every 6 to 12 months for most models most of the time. Aegis may have some added perspective here, regarding the Euro market.
So, what's the contention? If the iPhone gets an HSPA revision in the Summer, that makes essentially 3 minor revisions within a year in your parlance. We can argue that it isn't the case if Apple doesn't come out with a revised iPhone by Summer, but the odds are pretty good they will.
How does "selling the iPhone in more countries" equal Apple selling 10 million iPhones in the US in '08, which is what we were discussing??
Just ignore that part of the sentence.
Sure, a price cut would help US sales, as would the intro of a 3G model, and I expect both. But Apple choosing to sell through only one carrier in the US, plus the fact that we're entering a recession makes 10 million sales in the US in 2008 quite the pie-in-the-sky goal. Heck, many analysts believe that its going to be a major challenge for Apple to sell 10 million iPhones worldwide in '08, and I tend to agree. They can do it, but they're going to have to execute.
I do agree they have to execute. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
I'd call the camera one of the significant factors in the buying decision, and moreso in Europe than the US. You buy a high-end phone, you expect high-end features, and a good ('for a phone') camera is one of them. Is it at the top of the list? For most I'd say no, but its something you definitely look at. I don't think our perceptions are that far apart here.
It's the features that one values most. There's always tradeoffs in what a product will have. You want a camera phone. I don't think Apple intends the iPhone to be a camera phone. Maybe they will, but obviously not today.
Price certainly matters, though I don't think Apple can make the Euro iPhone the same price as the US model, due to the taxes over there. But Apple has already taken steps to make the plans more competitive, as they did with O2 already.
But price is only half the battle. Some features obviously DO matter... I think you'd have to be pretty tone-deaf not to hear the repeated cries for 3G from the Euros over the past few months. Ditto MMS, really.
I'm fairly confident that price or cost of ownership is more than half the battle, otherwise cheap cell phones and basic service wouldn't constitute the vast majority of what people have. Aegis himself said one big barrier to iPhone sales in the UK is the fact that other high end phones can be had for cheaper or free. (And obviously, cheap or free aint Apple).
The features just need to be good for what the iPhone is designed to do. Other features such as the camera are thrown in to provide basic functionality. I mean, if Apple was really serious about the iPhone being a good "phone", I'd like to have 3 or 4 speakers, 2 or 3 microphones, and better amp, filtering, shielding on the audio circuitry; but that's probably out of the scope of a cell phone. They seem really serious about the iPhone being a really good Internet thingy though.
Yep, and I'd define "adequate" as being comparable on a specs sheet to the phones the iPhone is competing with. As you yourself say, "I'll agree with the perception that more is better and its effect on sales."
So, if I'm looking for multimedia phone and I see the iPhone's 3.5" screen and compared to the N95-3/4's 2.8" screen or the Viewty's 3" screen, I'm calling the latter 2 losers. If I'm looking for a camera phone, well, it's obvious one should choose one of the latter 2. Does Apple have to compete and try to get camera phone customers? No.
2.0 MP and no video recording just looks bad on a phone as expensive and hyped as the iPhone. Not as bad as no 3G does to the Euros, but it does matter some. If the next iPhone is similarly spec'd, I think it'll be pretty disappointing to anyone who cares even moderately about the camera and/or video functionality of their high-end phone.
I'm perfectly fine with it. I want it for the basic phone use, Internet, music and video. I'm waiting for HSPA, 16+ GB myself; not to mention my other barrier of entry, but the spouse is beside the point. Having a camera around isn't that important to me. Certainly having a better camera isn't a better tradeoff than the Internet browsing capability or a larger screen for video viewing.
The key is what does the majority of consumers want; or what does the target market want and can they sell enough. The cellphone market is big enough to support gigantic submarkets, so I don't think it is a huge issue for Apple not to have a featuritis phone.
I don't agree that Apple should plan its products around consumer ignorance.
They already do, and have for many years. For example, megahertz has mattered to Apple a lot through the years, even though we all know that how much work actually gets done per clock cycle matters more.
And what you'd call "consumer ignorance", the Apple marketing team would likely term "consumer reality".
The iPhone was part of the reason. Selling higher revenue 2 million Mac's in a quarter is more what did it.
Change that to "the iPhone was a big part of the reason", and you'll just about have it.
That is not true year over year profits grew 17%
We were talking about revenues, Teno. You do understand the difference between revenues and profits, correct?
Show us a quote from a major investor or analyst who says iPhone sales are the reason stock went down.
I could, and you know I'm very good at digging up such quotes, but... why bother? Nearly everyone I've talked to understands this but you. iPhone sales were not the sole reason why the stock took a dump (the economy sure hurt too) but they were a big part of it. The 'iPhone growth story' was overhyped, at least in the near term, and now we're paying for it. That's really a "Duh" as far as the investor picture goes.
Show me any major tech website that takes the iPhone to task for having a 2MP camera. Or anyone who seriously cares about photo quality from from phones.
I don't think it much matters, considering more ppl look at specs than read specific reviews on even the biggest tech sites, like CNET or Engadget.
Still, if it makes you feel better, I Google'd around for about 60 seconds and saw that Ars Technica called the iPhone out for missing camera and video features, though to be fair they found the camera to be "acceptable" (a ringing endorsement for any cutting-edge phone, to be sure):
Some major downsides to the iPhone's camera abilities are that it doesn't have support for digital zoom like most cameras do, and it has no setting for night photos (even the RAZR has both of these capabilities). Therefore, the iPhone can only take very limited photos in dim lighting and almost no photos whatsoever when it gets downright "dark."
Another glaring omission is the lack of video capabilities in the iPhone's camera: something that many very basic (and much cheaper) handsets can do. If Apple wants this to be a full-fledged multimedia device, adding video capabilities almost seems crucial.
Oh, and the Tech section of the London Times Online did notice the lack of megapixels:
The camera is only 2 megapixels, far fewer than the best 'camera-centric' phones, but the image is perfectly clear, if a little troubled by low light.
But of course, what really matters is word-of-mouth. This YouTube video (with nearly 200,000 views) made me wince, but it's largely true:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Q5Q...eature=related
Anyways, why so defensive about the camera, Teno? Odds are Apple probably will fix it on the 3G iPhone, unless Jobs had too many three-martini lunches during the planning meetings.
.
So, would you call the "N96" a N95 2.0? Or is it really just the N95-5? What would constitute a revised iPhone, the iPhone 2.0? And do other phone lines have the same revision cycle?
Well, considering that you somehow forgot to include the part of my quote where I said the N96 was a minor revision to the N95, I think you got the answer to the first of your questions already.
And in an earlier post I already stated that the iPhone 2.0 = the 3G iPhone, period. So you've already been answered there as well.
Do other phone lines have the same revision cycle? If by that you mean that all phones should be held to the same standard as far as what constitutes a minor or major revision, I would agree with that.
So, what's the contention? If the iPhone gets an HSPA revision in the Summer, that makes essentially 3 minor revisions within a year in your parlance. We can argue that it isn't the case if Apple doesn't come out with a revised iPhone by Summer, but the odds are pretty good they will.
There's no contention, I was simply agreeing with other folks who stated that model revisions occur frequently in the cell phone market. They do. But I wouldn't call an HSDPA (3G) revision to the iPhone "minor" by any means, as you do above.
The iPhone storage revisions? They're certainly minor, as nothing else was changed.
Just ignore that part of the sentence.
Ah, okay.
I do agree they have to execute. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
Yup. But no amount of execution gets them 10 million iPhone sales in the US alone in '08, however. To meet their goal, they're going to have to get significant sales in Europe and Asia. And I think they can, unless they are very slow on getting a 3G iPhone out and/or are incredibly inflexible on pricing.
It's the features that one values most. There's always tradeoffs in what a product will have. You want a camera phone. I don't think Apple intends the iPhone to be a camera phone. Maybe they will, but obviously not today.
Actually, the iPhone is already a camera phone, since it has a camera. I guess you mean a phone with a good camera... for a phone. And yes, I think that would help, considering that at the iPhone's high price point, ppl might reasonably expect something like a good camera, plus video capture, a flash, autofocus, etc.
Far as Apple's intentions go, perhaps you are right, and Apple thought it could skate by with the current camera specs. But, what does that prove? Apple also thought it could skate by in Europe with 2.5G and high pricing and do fine. But that hasn't really worked out too well.
I'm fairly confident that price or cost of ownership is more than half the battle, otherwise cheap cell phones and basic service wouldn't constitute the vast majority of what people have.
Cost of ownership is important, but only if your feature set isn't a deal-breaker to begin with. Apple could lower the price of the iPhone considerably, but if they keep it at 2.5G, it still won't sell well in Europe. Not to mention Japan and Korea, where they're launching later this year.
So, if I'm looking for multimedia phone and I see the iPhone's 3.5" screen and compared to the N95-3/4's 2.8" screen or the Viewty's 3" screen, I'm calling the latter 2 losers.
I think there are a lot of ppl whose buying decision was influenced by the iPhone having a very large screen. And frankly, I'm surprised Apple hasn't made more hay about it in its ads... they seem to think that simply showing the screen is enough, even though showing it side by side with its competitors screens would be quite a coup.
But I guess Apple feels that showing its competitors at all in the commercials would be doing its competition a favor.
If I'm looking for a camera phone, well, it's obvious one should choose one of the latter 2. Does Apple have to compete and try to get camera phone customers? No.
Apple doesn't have to do anything, but if they want to sell more iPhones, and I think they do, they do have to worry about how the iPhone looks versus its competition.
I'm perfectly fine with it.
I'm happy to hear that. But I'm not worried about you, as you are not the market.
The key is what does the majority of consumers want; or what does the target market want and can they sell enough. The cellphone market is big enough to support gigantic submarkets, so I don't think it is a huge issue for Apple not to have a featuritis phone.
I don't think the iPhone needs to have every single possible cellphone feature under the sun... if I did, I'd be saying, "Where's the FM radio? Where's the flashlight?". But I'm not saying that.
What I am saying is that it's logical to be at least on par (or close) with your competition in the features that a significant chunk of the high-end cellphone market actually cares about. 3G would be one of those features. MMS? Yes, ppl expect it. A camera with good specs, video recording, flash, autofocus? At this (high) pricepoint... yep.
You may not see it that way, and I respect your opinion. But frankly, I think Apple was a bit surprised at the iPhone's fairly poor reception in Europe, and is now realizing what it really takes to compete there (not to mention Asia). Thus, I think we will see some significant spec bumps and feature adds to the iPhone's camera/video capabilities in the 3G iPhone... not to mention elsewhere.
And if they do that, it will simply be a wise competitive move, not 'featuritis'. But if you see FM radio capability or a flashlight on the 3G iPhone, then you can call featuritis. And I will join you.
.
The 8 GB iPhone costs 269 lb no? That's $540! I'm pretty sure we don't have 30% sales tax here. We're mostly 6 to 9% sales tax. The UK 16 GB is $660. The 35 lb monthly service is reasonable. It seems short on SMS messages though.
It's £269 (not lb, lb is a pound in weight, not currency) which is £228.94 before sales tax, or roughly $455. The 16GB is £280+tax or roughly $557. That's about normal for Apple. They never give us quite the US price. It's possible the difference is import tax being higher in the UK too, not just sales tax. Still, it's no great issue. Remember, our prices are always quoted including all taxes.
The monthly tariffs are reasonable now. They weren't when they launched here. They're about 5 times better than they were. The only problem really being that the base tariff is £35 and you can't get £15 or £25 tariffs which suit many more people than the higher tariffs.
I'm fairly ok with the iPhone at "full" price sales strategy. But I definitely think the vector for sales is the monthly service costs. Unlimited EDGE plus whatever minutes/SMS for say 25 to 30 lb would be interesting to see. Obviously, when the HSPA version comes out, unlimited HSPA has to be on the low side as well.
The upfront cost is unsual. Usually if you pay that much upfront, you expect a short contract or cheaper tariff. If you got the current £35 contract for £25 and paid £269 for the handset it'd be almost competitively priced. Apple are charging a premium for it's logo.
I can certainly understand the lack of EDGE in Europe as a driving factor for low iPhone sales. Then again, I can help but think Apple expected it.
Maybe. Maybe they just didn't have a 3G phone ready but thought they could at least sell a few hundred thousand 2G phones in the meantime to people who aren't as tech savvy. Coupling it to very expensive contracts though seems like a mistake they should have expected would fail. Still, at least O2 UK seem to have narrowed that problem. I can't help but think they've screwed up in Ireland though. That's even worse than we had in the UK at launch.
iPod nano 2G: 90 x 40 x 6.5 mm, 23.4 cm^3
6500 classic: 109.8 x 45 x 9.5 mm, 47 cm^3
iPhone: 115 x 61 mm x 11.6 mm, 81.4 cm^3
ok, it just felt about the same size as my nano in the shop, my mistake. My point was more that there are small, thin phones with 3G, with a reasonable camera, with a flash and decent battery life. There's no technical reason why Apple couldn't put that all in an iPhone which is quite a large phone. The Nokia 6500 in fact would make a pretty hot template for an 'iPhone Nano' except replace the keypad with a touch screen and allow it to be used in landscape mode to type. It's a nice size whereas I find the iPhone a little too big.