[i]Along with over ordering - over charging what the market would be willing to bear for phone and tariff.
Unstable in its business model.
Google does not want this for Android. Which ironically is based on Linux.
Come on now. BREW and OS X are not in the same class of development platforms at all. The hardware running the LG Voyager is not the same as the hardware powering the iPhone. You get what you pay for.
From the examples of what we've seen the iPhone SDK will be worth the wait.
Over-ordering --- based on Apple's sales projection numbers. Little did these carriers know that 50% of those shipment numbers that Apple was announcing were going to China and Russia. Over charging --- based on Apple's revenue sharing business model. Notice the first thing Orange execs are asking for is killing the revenue share in exchange for lowering handset price.
There are a million different mobile OS platforms --- they are all surviving. Nothing to do with business models at all if Blackberry can survive with a 14 million users and Apple shooting with 1% of the world's market. Google could have produced their own proprietary mobile OS platform and survive on its own. It is more sinister for them to wrap themselves in open source hype when all we know it is against every open source principle to force a non-fragmentation agreement onto a project in which Google forked from Java ME in the first place.
Of course Google doesn't want that for Android --- they want to make money off of it. RedHat is worth only $3 billion as a company. Google is worth 50 times as much. There is no money on open source OS, but there is a lot of money of mobile API platforms.
OSX and BREW are not in the same class --- precisely --- one is based on a server kernel and the other is built specifically for resource constrained embedded phone hardware. Which one is better for the phone --- the OS that is designed for the phone, not a giant server. The hardware is the same on any highend cell phone --- it's a ARM11/ARM9 combo --- doesn't matter whether it's a N series phone, a iphone or a highend Qualcomm CDMA phone.
The LG Voyager has done a single thing for the industry --- show that the carriers can maintain the status quo of "subsidized crippled phone with a long contract without revenue sharing".
And it's not just the Voyager, the iphone was supposed to kill the blackberry. Blackberry sold 4 million units in the last quarter, which is twice as much as the iphone.
Yes and 1 iphone model has sold 4 million to 400 million Nokias.
Yes and 1 iphone model has sold 4 million to 400 million Nokias.
You would think that the article at: http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...ing-to-france/ would settle for once and for all if the iPhone was a flop in Europe. Samab posted a winner but the "Apple Eaters" (play on Death Eaters) simply will not have it.
You would think that the article at: http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...ing-to-france/ would settle for once and for all if the iPhone was a flop in Europe. Samab posted a winner but the "Apple Eaters" (play on Death Eaters) simply will not have it.
Yes and Nokia's market share slipped, and they are struggling in North America:
Read the first three paragraphs of the first link. I did not even bother with the second link. When Apple can surpass Nokia, then you have my interest. Unless Apple adapts to the world outside of the US, the iPhone will continue to fail. Your argument is similar to those who continue to think that football (soccer) will never be popular until it is adopted by Americans. 3 plus Billion (with a B) will disagree with you. Apple thought the same tactics that applied in the US will fly over in Europe. The fact remains that for the most part, European phone subscribers are generally more evolved and sophisticated in terms of functionality, usages, services, etc... than their American counterparts. Apple missed this fact and now it has come back to bite them.
My most basic Nokia out performs the iPhone in pure specs. If you stripped the iPhone of the UI and got down to the basics, it is a 3 year old phone. Touch UI's have been around in SE and Nokia phones and devices for a while. Not that there is an uptake, and the devices are more mainstream,
Nokia's have longer feature lists, but not necessarily better performance.
Nokia phones don't use a desktop OS with desktop API's and applications.
Most all other touchscreen UI are rudimentary in comparison to the iPhone design. This is why they have never really been very popular.
No Nokia phone currently uses 620MHz processor, 16GB internal storage, 3.5 inch multi-touchscreen
Quote:
Nokia and SE will simply ramp up and produce them as well. Apple simply evolved an already used technology. It is not revolutionary.
This has been said for a year and a half now. When is it going to happen?
Over-ordering --- based on Apple's sales projection numbers. Little did these carriers know that 50% of those shipment numbers that Apple was announcing were going to China and Russia.
The only sales projections Apple publicly gave were 1% of the mobile phone market in 2008.
What other numbers are you citing?
Quote:
Over charging --- based on Apple's revenue sharing business model. Notice the first thing Orange execs are asking for is killing the revenue share in exchange for lowering handset price.
Its unclear if this is the problem as O2 lowered its tariff price after it was shown they were charging too much. AT&T is having no problem and has found a price the market is willing to bear with revenue sharing.
Quote:
OSX and BREW are not in the same class --- precisely --- one is based on a server kernel and the other is built specifically for resource constrained embedded phone hardware. Which one is better for the phone --- the OS that is designed for the phone, not a giant server.
Samab now you are just reaching for complaints. Apple designed OS X to be scalable and modular. They simply remove the parts of the OS that are not needed for a phone. Are you really that stubborn to not admit the wisdom of how Apple designed OS X and its strengths.
Quote:
The hardware is the same on any highend cell phone --- it's a ARM11/ARM9 combo --- doesn't matter whether it's a N series phone, a iphone or a highend Qualcomm CDMA phone.
No the hardware is not all the same. Most all computers use Intel processors but they are not all the same.
There clearly is a difference when a faster processor can render complex graphics faster. Or render full HTML web pages faster.
There clearly is difference with more internal storage.
There clearly is a difference when you have a larger brighter screen.
There clearly is a difference when you have longer battery life.
The only sales projections Apple publicly gave were 1% of the mobile phone market in 2008.
What other numbers are you citing?
Its unclear if this is the problem as O2 lowered its tariff price after it was shown they were charging too much. AT&T is having no problem and has found a price the market is willing to bear with revenue sharing.
Samab now you are just reaching for complaints. Apple designed OS X to be scalable and modular. They simply remove the parts of the OS that are not needed for a phone. Are you really that stubborn to not admit the wisdom of how Apple designed OS X and its strengths.
No the hardware is not all the same. Most all computers use Intel processors but they are not all the same.
There clearly is a difference when a faster processor can render complex graphics faster. Or render full HTML web pages faster.
There clearly is difference with more internal storage.
There clearly is a difference when you have a larger brighter screen.
There clearly is a difference when you have longer battery life.
And I'll add to that that there is clearly a difference when the apps are seamlessly integrated so that discovery by a non-technical user is trivial.
That's the real genius of the iPhone-- it's mobile computing device that my mom can use. My mom cannot use an N95-- and haters, save your braying about great the Nokia interface is, you know it's true.
As it stands, the iPhone is still too expensive to go critical mass and explode the platform, but Apple is obviously going to address that. When they do.... they start getting people who didn't think they even wanted a "smart phone", because they can't even figure out how to use all the "features" on their dumb phone.
It's an OS X device. It's a platform on the same code base as Apple's desktop software. Hardware just gets more powerful. People who are hung up on things like phone feature lists or "it's just an expensive iPod with a phone" are astonishingly clueless.
The only sales projections Apple publicly gave were 1% of the mobile phone market in 2008.
What other numbers are you citing?
Its unclear if this is the problem as O2 lowered its tariff price after it was shown they were charging too much. AT&T is having no problem and has found a price the market is willing to bear with revenue sharing.
Samab now you are just reaching for complaints. Apple designed OS X to be scalable and modular. They simply remove the parts of the OS that are not needed for a phone. Are you really that stubborn to not admit the wisdom of how Apple designed OS X and its strengths.
No the hardware is not all the same. Most all computers use Intel processors but they are not all the same.
There clearly is a difference when a faster processor can render complex graphics faster. Or render full HTML web pages faster.
There clearly is difference with more internal storage.
There clearly is a difference when you have a larger brighter screen.
There clearly is a difference when you have longer battery life.
Windows XP is scaleable as well -- that's why Microsoft sells XP Embedded --- whether that does the job is another thing. All the other "real" mobile OS'es were designed to scale down to kilobytes of memory. Apple has to license an OS from a 3rd party for the ipod --- because OSX can't scale down that low.
Higher speed CPU and bigger memory --- means that Apple's iphone OS is slow.
For 20 years, Mac users have been saying that they didn't really lose the Mhz war --- because they have better OS'es than Microsoft --- so they don't need faster CPU's to achieve the same thing. I still remember my Mac SE/30 with a giant Radius 2 page greyscale monitor. Now it's the other way around, the other mobile OS'es are built for cell phones and can use slower CPU with fewer memory.
It is the most expensive iPod with phone option ever because that is all it is, an iPod with phone.
WRONG- NO IT IS NOT. YOU DON'T NEED A CONTRACT WITH AT&T FOR AN IPOD . It is a cellphone !!!!!!!! Stop spreading that BS!! Is is a cellphone with iPod qualities. An iPhone is compared with CELLPHONES/SMARTPHONES not portable audio/ MP3 devices.
Windows XP is scaleable as well -- that's why Microsoft sells XP Embedded --- whether that does the job is another thing. All the other "real" mobile OS'es were designed to scale down to kilobytes of memory. Apple has to license an OS from a 3rd party for the ipod --- because OSX can't scale down that low.
Higher speed CPU and bigger memory --- means that Apple's iphone OS is slow.
For 20 years, Mac users have been saying that they didn't really lose the Mhz war --- because they have better OS'es than Microsoft --- so they don't need faster CPU's to achieve the same thing. I still remember my Mac SE/30 with a giant Radius 2 page greyscale monitor. Now it's the other way around, the other mobile OS'es are built for cell phones and can use slower CPU with fewer memory.
You've got this exactly backward. Apple didn't introduce a mobile computing device until the hardware could support a version of OS X. Going forward, hardware just gets more capable, which means it's all upside for Apple
Purpose built mobile OSes, on the other hand, are going to find it increasingly difficult to scale up.
Your thoughts on Windows Embedded, the iPod classic OS and the iPhone's allegedly "slow" OS make no sense whatsoever.
Windows scales somewhat, but not to CE class devices. Nobody thinks the iPhone's OS is slow, I'm amazed you'd even go there. And why in the world would you cite the iPod classic's OS as evidence of Apple's inability to scale OS X when we're talking about the iPhone?
Or are you under the impression that CPU speed and memory on handheld devices are justing going to hold still, so the competition will be to see who can run some semblance of an OS on the least capable hardware available now?
Nokia's have longer feature lists, but not necessarily better performance.
No one said it did but the N82 can out perform the iPhone in the basic of TELEPHONY functions. Can you send more than one SMS at a time? Can you do a VoIP call? How about taking an SMS received and converting that to a phone number? How about storing files to send later as vCards (the industry standard)? These very simple things I detailed are important in a biz phone and included in ALL smart phones. The iPhone can do NONE of these. Not one. Now with Skype VoIP is possible but your phone has to be jailbroken to do even this simple thing.
Quote:
Nokia phones don't use a desktop OS with desktop API's and applications.
Your argument is pretty thin. Symbian is the perfect OS for what it does in Nokia and other phones.
Quote:
Most all other touchscreen UI are rudimentary in comparison to the iPhone design. This is why they have never really been very popular.
Nokia phones have the accelerometer feature minus the zooming functionality. It is a matter now of implementing it. Apple didn't invent this technology. They bought it.
Quote:
No Nokia phone currently uses 620MHz processor, 16GB internal storage, 3.5 inch multi-touchscreen
The processing power in my N82 for what it does is more than enough and outmatches the iPhone. I can use the GPS, listen to the media player, and make a call all at the same time. The iPhone can't multi-task because it is designed not to.
Quote:
This has been said for a year and a half now. When is it going to happen?
Some of you zealot lemmings said the iPhone would kill all other phones as well, and we can see from the news that this just ain't so. The GSM congress is coming as well as some the new lauchning season. We will see what both bring. Maybe Apple will get smart and hire some Nokia guys to show them how to design a premium phone with premium functionality.
WRONG- NO IT IS NOT. YOU DON'T NEED A CONTRACT WITH AT&T FOR AN IPOD . It is a cellphone !!!!!!!! Stop spreading that BS!! Is is a cellphone with iPod qualities. An iPhone is compared with CELLPHONES/SMARTPHONES not portable audio/ MP3 devices.
One word: DOH!!!!!!!
Here is a simple questionnaire for you:
1. Can the iPhone do MMS?
2. Can the iPhone send more multiple SMS?
3. Can the iPhone do a VoIP call without being jail-broken and using Skype?
4. Can it store files to send later as an email?
5. What is the megapixel of the camera?
6. Can it play games?
7. Can it send vCards or support OBEX?
I can go on and on and continue to embarrass you if you like. My iPod Touch can't do any of these except use Skype but then again it was designed as an iPod, not and iPhone. The iPhone can not do any of these things either and it was designed as a phone. Sooooooooo, smell the coffee. My statement still stands. The iPhone is an iPod with some rudimentary phoning features.
3. Can the iPhone do a VoIP call without being jail-broken and using Skype?
4. Can it store files to send later as an email?
5. What is the megapixel of the camera?
6. Can it play games?
7. Can it send vCards or support OBEX?
I can go on and on and continue to embarrass you if you like. My iPod Touch can't do any of these except use Skype but then again it was designed as an iPod, not and iPhone. The iPhone can not do any of these things either and it was designed as a phone. Sooooooooo, smell the coffee. My statement still stands. The iPhone is an iPod with some rudimentary phoning features.
The iPhone is the first iteration of a general purpose computing platform that is designed around portability, a multi-touch interface and ubiquitous connectivity.
The "rudimentary" phone features that you are so hung up on are the end result of a series of tradeoffs and choices that Apple made, driven by criteria such as size, battery life, ease of use and application integration. You may not care for some of those tradeoffs, but Apple had its reasons for all of them.
The months to come will bring a flood of new apps from third party developers, as well as further refinements and enhancements of the platform by Apple itself.
How you get "it's just an iPod with some phone stuff tossed on" out of all of that is very mysterious to me.
The iPhone is the first iteration of a general purpose computing platform that is designed around portability, a multi-touch interface and ubiquitous connectivity.
Okay, here goes. Did I say that these were not good features? I was/am/wil be talking about telephony features
Quote:
The "rudimentary" phone features that you are so hung up on are the end result of a series of tradeoffs and choices that Apple made, driven by criteria such as size, battery life, ease of use and application integration. You may not care for some of those tradeoffs, but Apple had its reasons for all of them.
Tradeoffs? Really? Do you honestly have any experience with a high-end phone? I ask this seriously. These so called "rudimentary" features are basic in all devices sans the iPhone in all devices that claim to be phones. These tradeoffs are all software driven, minus the camera so your argument is baseless.
Quote:
The months to come will bring a flood of new apps from third party developers, as well as further refinements and enhancements of the platform by Apple itself.
You can have them now if you do not mind jailbreaking you phone.
Quote:
How you get "it's just an iPod with some phone stuff tossed on" out of all of that is very mysterious to me.
The "rudimentary" features are missing from the iPod Touch as well, but it is designed as an iPod, not a phone, so my argument still stands. Until the iPhone can perform: 1-4, and 6-7, it will remain an iPod with some phoning capabilities.
I've worked for apples european sales for three years, and i live in ireland, coming from the uk
I can tell you now 2 things:-
1) Jobs arrogance cannot be over stated. He believes in his vision, its US centric to an insulting degree, and if he comes across something he does not like, it is steam rolled over, or forgotten about.
2) Secondly, i base a phone's sucess on how often i see that phone. Three years ago, i bought a razr (its a piece of crap, but it looked cool), it was pretty pricey at the time, especially since contracts were not a big thing in Ireland, or the UK, but within a few months, i had seen that phone everywhere.
Fast forward a few months since the iphone was launched. I see that phone NOWHERE. No one i know, has one, no one they know has one. Reason being -
1) Weak tech
2) More importantly the price. Most people have said, nice, really like it, but i am not paying that amount of money.
The iphone is TOTALLY over priced, and it is NOT being adopted by the UK or Ireland (especially in Ireland, where we are forced to over pay by ridiculous amounts, and we dont even get visual voicemail)
To all the apple fanboys, grow up. The iphone is NOT a success in Europe at all.
In Germany they have cut it down to 99 euros, in the UK, they have halved the price.
Quite simply, Jobs looked at the european market, compared it to America, realized he couldn't make the same amount of money, but STILL decided to FORCE his plan down the European throat. Greedy companies leapt in behind him, and now the whole process is BARELY moving.
I have no doubt the iphone type device could succeed. But apple need to wise up, and stop ripping people off.
Right now, without a contract, the iphone could have been THE most popular handset in Europe.
Its not. Its not going to be either. In short, its failing.
What correction are you talking about? You mean the sudden 99 Euro prices? You seem to forget, Europeans are used to paying full price for phones. There are some subsidizing here but Europeans don't cry about the price of phones the way American subscribers do.
There are actually several articles that say Europeans don't pay full price for phones.
Quote:
If this is the best you got then the iPhone is doomed. The iPhone is not a biz grade phone, nor even a real smart phone. It is an iPod with phone.
You are not the first to declare an Apple product doomed. Its actually quite a cliche. I'm surprised you said it.
Unless you missed the big announcement active sync is coming. We will have to wait to see how it does.
What is the definition of a " real smartphone"?
You keep calling the iPhone an iPod. You need to stop that. It makes you sound quite uninformed. The iPod is one of 17 apps that come with the iPhone. Studies have shown Mail app, Safari, and the phone app are used more than the iPod app.
Quote:
The iPhone simply falls short. Just for fun, compare the N82 features with those of the iPhone and see the difference.
I care less about a long feature list as I care about the quality and usability of the features.
Quote:
My N82 does this already.
You really need to stop. You don't know what you are talking about.
Currently no shipping desktop browser engine fully supports HTML 5.
The S60 browser on your N82 based on the WebKit engine certainly does not support it because WebKit does not yet fully support it.
Quote:
No, no, no, no again, nope, nein, ei, and so on. CRIPPLED. So you "crippled is pretty much meaningless" is pretty much meaningless as well as it is based on inaccuracies. When I got my iPhone (are you paying attention anantksundaram), I knew what it could and could not do. I do not use it regularly. I use it sometimes as a work phone for the days when I want to have a vid or some music with me. Most of the time it sits in a draw.
This is all your subjective opinion. You may think highly of your opinion, but don't confuse it for facts.
Comments
N95 is an Over priced gadget. Would not buy it if they cut the price to any amount.
And the iPhone is what then?
I guess you can dump the over priced bit now that Apple is dumping stock, but its certainly the most gadgety phone on the market.
And the iPhone is what then?
I guess you can dump the over priced but now that Apple is dumping stock, but its certainly the most gadgety phone on the market.
It is the most expensive iPod with phone option ever because that is all it is, an iPod with phone.
[i]Along with over ordering - over charging what the market would be willing to bear for phone and tariff.
Unstable in its business model.
Google does not want this for Android. Which ironically is based on Linux.
Come on now. BREW and OS X are not in the same class of development platforms at all. The hardware running the LG Voyager is not the same as the hardware powering the iPhone. You get what you pay for.
From the examples of what we've seen the iPhone SDK will be worth the wait.
Over-ordering --- based on Apple's sales projection numbers. Little did these carriers know that 50% of those shipment numbers that Apple was announcing were going to China and Russia. Over charging --- based on Apple's revenue sharing business model. Notice the first thing Orange execs are asking for is killing the revenue share in exchange for lowering handset price.
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...ing-to-france/
There are a million different mobile OS platforms --- they are all surviving. Nothing to do with business models at all if Blackberry can survive with a 14 million users and Apple shooting with 1% of the world's market. Google could have produced their own proprietary mobile OS platform and survive on its own. It is more sinister for them to wrap themselves in open source hype when all we know it is against every open source principle to force a non-fragmentation agreement onto a project in which Google forked from Java ME in the first place.
Of course Google doesn't want that for Android --- they want to make money off of it. RedHat is worth only $3 billion as a company. Google is worth 50 times as much. There is no money on open source OS, but there is a lot of money of mobile API platforms.
OSX and BREW are not in the same class --- precisely --- one is based on a server kernel and the other is built specifically for resource constrained embedded phone hardware. Which one is better for the phone --- the OS that is designed for the phone, not a giant server. The hardware is the same on any highend cell phone --- it's a ARM11/ARM9 combo --- doesn't matter whether it's a N series phone, a iphone or a highend Qualcomm CDMA phone.
The LG Voyager has done a single thing for the industry --- show that the carriers can maintain the status quo of "subsidized crippled phone with a long contract without revenue sharing".
And it's not just the Voyager, the iphone was supposed to kill the blackberry. Blackberry sold 4 million units in the last quarter, which is twice as much as the iphone.
Yes and 1 iphone model has sold 4 million to 400 million Nokias.
Yes and 1 iphone model has sold 4 million to 400 million Nokias.
You would think that the article at: http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...ing-to-france/ would settle for once and for all if the iPhone was a flop in Europe. Samab posted a winner but the "Apple Eaters" (play on Death Eaters) simply will not have it.
You would think that the article at: http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...ing-to-france/ would settle for once and for all if the iPhone was a flop in Europe. Samab posted a winner but the "Apple Eaters" (play on Death Eaters) simply will not have it.
Yes and Nokia's market share slipped, and they are struggling in North America:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...questid=302466
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...1-24592004.htm
Yes and Nokia's market share slipped, and they are struggling in North America:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...questid=302466
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...1-24592004.htm
Read the first three paragraphs of the first link. I did not even bother with the second link. When Apple can surpass Nokia, then you have my interest. Unless Apple adapts to the world outside of the US, the iPhone will continue to fail. Your argument is similar to those who continue to think that football (soccer) will never be popular until it is adopted by Americans. 3 plus Billion (with a B) will disagree with you. Apple thought the same tactics that applied in the US will fly over in Europe. The fact remains that for the most part, European phone subscribers are generally more evolved and sophisticated in terms of functionality, usages, services, etc... than their American counterparts. Apple missed this fact and now it has come back to bite them.
Game, set, match: Nokia.
My most basic Nokia out performs the iPhone in pure specs. If you stripped the iPhone of the UI and got down to the basics, it is a 3 year old phone. Touch UI's have been around in SE and Nokia phones and devices for a while. Not that there is an uptake, and the devices are more mainstream,
Nokia's have longer feature lists, but not necessarily better performance.
Nokia phones don't use a desktop OS with desktop API's and applications.
Most all other touchscreen UI are rudimentary in comparison to the iPhone design. This is why they have never really been very popular.
No Nokia phone currently uses 620MHz processor, 16GB internal storage, 3.5 inch multi-touchscreen
Nokia and SE will simply ramp up and produce them as well. Apple simply evolved an already used technology. It is not revolutionary.
This has been said for a year and a half now. When is it going to happen?
Over-ordering --- based on Apple's sales projection numbers. Little did these carriers know that 50% of those shipment numbers that Apple was announcing were going to China and Russia.
The only sales projections Apple publicly gave were 1% of the mobile phone market in 2008.
What other numbers are you citing?
Over charging --- based on Apple's revenue sharing business model. Notice the first thing Orange execs are asking for is killing the revenue share in exchange for lowering handset price.
Its unclear if this is the problem as O2 lowered its tariff price after it was shown they were charging too much. AT&T is having no problem and has found a price the market is willing to bear with revenue sharing.
OSX and BREW are not in the same class --- precisely --- one is based on a server kernel and the other is built specifically for resource constrained embedded phone hardware. Which one is better for the phone --- the OS that is designed for the phone, not a giant server.
Samab now you are just reaching for complaints. Apple designed OS X to be scalable and modular. They simply remove the parts of the OS that are not needed for a phone. Are you really that stubborn to not admit the wisdom of how Apple designed OS X and its strengths.
The hardware is the same on any highend cell phone --- it's a ARM11/ARM9 combo --- doesn't matter whether it's a N series phone, a iphone or a highend Qualcomm CDMA phone.
No the hardware is not all the same. Most all computers use Intel processors but they are not all the same.
There clearly is a difference when a faster processor can render complex graphics faster. Or render full HTML web pages faster.
There clearly is difference with more internal storage.
There clearly is a difference when you have a larger brighter screen.
There clearly is a difference when you have longer battery life.
The only sales projections Apple publicly gave were 1% of the mobile phone market in 2008.
What other numbers are you citing?
Its unclear if this is the problem as O2 lowered its tariff price after it was shown they were charging too much. AT&T is having no problem and has found a price the market is willing to bear with revenue sharing.
Samab now you are just reaching for complaints. Apple designed OS X to be scalable and modular. They simply remove the parts of the OS that are not needed for a phone. Are you really that stubborn to not admit the wisdom of how Apple designed OS X and its strengths.
No the hardware is not all the same. Most all computers use Intel processors but they are not all the same.
There clearly is a difference when a faster processor can render complex graphics faster. Or render full HTML web pages faster.
There clearly is difference with more internal storage.
There clearly is a difference when you have a larger brighter screen.
There clearly is a difference when you have longer battery life.
And I'll add to that that there is clearly a difference when the apps are seamlessly integrated so that discovery by a non-technical user is trivial.
That's the real genius of the iPhone-- it's mobile computing device that my mom can use. My mom cannot use an N95-- and haters, save your braying about great the Nokia interface is, you know it's true.
As it stands, the iPhone is still too expensive to go critical mass and explode the platform, but Apple is obviously going to address that. When they do.... they start getting people who didn't think they even wanted a "smart phone", because they can't even figure out how to use all the "features" on their dumb phone.
It's an OS X device. It's a platform on the same code base as Apple's desktop software. Hardware just gets more powerful. People who are hung up on things like phone feature lists or "it's just an expensive iPod with a phone" are astonishingly clueless.
The only sales projections Apple publicly gave were 1% of the mobile phone market in 2008.
What other numbers are you citing?
Its unclear if this is the problem as O2 lowered its tariff price after it was shown they were charging too much. AT&T is having no problem and has found a price the market is willing to bear with revenue sharing.
Samab now you are just reaching for complaints. Apple designed OS X to be scalable and modular. They simply remove the parts of the OS that are not needed for a phone. Are you really that stubborn to not admit the wisdom of how Apple designed OS X and its strengths.
No the hardware is not all the same. Most all computers use Intel processors but they are not all the same.
There clearly is a difference when a faster processor can render complex graphics faster. Or render full HTML web pages faster.
There clearly is difference with more internal storage.
There clearly is a difference when you have a larger brighter screen.
There clearly is a difference when you have longer battery life.
Windows XP is scaleable as well -- that's why Microsoft sells XP Embedded --- whether that does the job is another thing. All the other "real" mobile OS'es were designed to scale down to kilobytes of memory. Apple has to license an OS from a 3rd party for the ipod --- because OSX can't scale down that low.
Higher speed CPU and bigger memory --- means that Apple's iphone OS is slow.
For 20 years, Mac users have been saying that they didn't really lose the Mhz war --- because they have better OS'es than Microsoft --- so they don't need faster CPU's to achieve the same thing. I still remember my Mac SE/30 with a giant Radius 2 page greyscale monitor. Now it's the other way around, the other mobile OS'es are built for cell phones and can use slower CPU with fewer memory.
It is the most expensive iPod with phone option ever because that is all it is, an iPod with phone.
WRONG- NO IT IS NOT. YOU DON'T NEED A CONTRACT WITH AT&T FOR AN IPOD . It is a cellphone !!!!!!!! Stop spreading that BS!! Is is a cellphone with iPod qualities. An iPhone is compared with CELLPHONES/SMARTPHONES not portable audio/ MP3 devices.
So your phone which was released before the iphone and is offered for free has sold 7 million to the iphone's 4 million.
Can you watch broadcast TV on an iPhone- NO!
Can you receive pictures from every other cellphone that sends them to you easily? -NO!
Can you get an iPhone without a data package- NO!
WHy?
Windows XP is scaleable as well -- that's why Microsoft sells XP Embedded --- whether that does the job is another thing. All the other "real" mobile OS'es were designed to scale down to kilobytes of memory. Apple has to license an OS from a 3rd party for the ipod --- because OSX can't scale down that low.
Higher speed CPU and bigger memory --- means that Apple's iphone OS is slow.
For 20 years, Mac users have been saying that they didn't really lose the Mhz war --- because they have better OS'es than Microsoft --- so they don't need faster CPU's to achieve the same thing. I still remember my Mac SE/30 with a giant Radius 2 page greyscale monitor. Now it's the other way around, the other mobile OS'es are built for cell phones and can use slower CPU with fewer memory.
You've got this exactly backward. Apple didn't introduce a mobile computing device until the hardware could support a version of OS X. Going forward, hardware just gets more capable, which means it's all upside for Apple
Purpose built mobile OSes, on the other hand, are going to find it increasingly difficult to scale up.
Your thoughts on Windows Embedded, the iPod classic OS and the iPhone's allegedly "slow" OS make no sense whatsoever.
Windows scales somewhat, but not to CE class devices. Nobody thinks the iPhone's OS is slow, I'm amazed you'd even go there. And why in the world would you cite the iPod classic's OS as evidence of Apple's inability to scale OS X when we're talking about the iPhone?
Or are you under the impression that CPU speed and memory on handheld devices are justing going to hold still, so the competition will be to see who can run some semblance of an OS on the least capable hardware available now?
Nokia's have longer feature lists, but not necessarily better performance.
No one said it did but the N82 can out perform the iPhone in the basic of TELEPHONY functions. Can you send more than one SMS at a time? Can you do a VoIP call? How about taking an SMS received and converting that to a phone number? How about storing files to send later as vCards (the industry standard)? These very simple things I detailed are important in a biz phone and included in ALL smart phones. The iPhone can do NONE of these. Not one. Now with Skype VoIP is possible but your phone has to be jailbroken to do even this simple thing.
Nokia phones don't use a desktop OS with desktop API's and applications.
Your argument is pretty thin. Symbian is the perfect OS for what it does in Nokia and other phones.
Most all other touchscreen UI are rudimentary in comparison to the iPhone design. This is why they have never really been very popular.
Nokia phones have the accelerometer feature minus the zooming functionality. It is a matter now of implementing it. Apple didn't invent this technology. They bought it.
No Nokia phone currently uses 620MHz processor, 16GB internal storage, 3.5 inch multi-touchscreen
The processing power in my N82 for what it does is more than enough and outmatches the iPhone. I can use the GPS, listen to the media player, and make a call all at the same time. The iPhone can't multi-task because it is designed not to.
This has been said for a year and a half now. When is it going to happen?
Some of you zealot lemmings said the iPhone would kill all other phones as well, and we can see from the news that this just ain't so. The GSM congress is coming as well as some the new lauchning season. We will see what both bring. Maybe Apple will get smart and hire some Nokia guys to show them how to design a premium phone with premium functionality.
WRONG- NO IT IS NOT. YOU DON'T NEED A CONTRACT WITH AT&T FOR AN IPOD . It is a cellphone !!!!!!!! Stop spreading that BS!! Is is a cellphone with iPod qualities. An iPhone is compared with CELLPHONES/SMARTPHONES not portable audio/ MP3 devices.
One word: DOH!!!!!!!
Here is a simple questionnaire for you:
1. Can the iPhone do MMS?
2. Can the iPhone send more multiple SMS?
3. Can the iPhone do a VoIP call without being jail-broken and using Skype?
4. Can it store files to send later as an email?
5. What is the megapixel of the camera?
6. Can it play games?
7. Can it send vCards or support OBEX?
I can go on and on and continue to embarrass you if you like. My iPod Touch can't do any of these except use Skype but then again it was designed as an iPod, not and iPhone. The iPhone can not do any of these things either and it was designed as a phone. Sooooooooo, smell the coffee. My statement still stands. The iPhone is an iPod with some rudimentary phoning features.
One word: DOH!!!!!!!
Here is a simple questionnaire for you:
1. Can the iPhone do MMS?
2. Can the iPhone send more multiple SMS?
3. Can the iPhone do a VoIP call without being jail-broken and using Skype?
4. Can it store files to send later as an email?
5. What is the megapixel of the camera?
6. Can it play games?
7. Can it send vCards or support OBEX?
I can go on and on and continue to embarrass you if you like. My iPod Touch can't do any of these except use Skype but then again it was designed as an iPod, not and iPhone. The iPhone can not do any of these things either and it was designed as a phone. Sooooooooo, smell the coffee. My statement still stands. The iPhone is an iPod with some rudimentary phoning features.
The iPhone is the first iteration of a general purpose computing platform that is designed around portability, a multi-touch interface and ubiquitous connectivity.
The "rudimentary" phone features that you are so hung up on are the end result of a series of tradeoffs and choices that Apple made, driven by criteria such as size, battery life, ease of use and application integration. You may not care for some of those tradeoffs, but Apple had its reasons for all of them.
The months to come will bring a flood of new apps from third party developers, as well as further refinements and enhancements of the platform by Apple itself.
How you get "it's just an iPod with some phone stuff tossed on" out of all of that is very mysterious to me.
The iPhone is the first iteration of a general purpose computing platform that is designed around portability, a multi-touch interface and ubiquitous connectivity.
Okay, here goes. Did I say that these were not good features? I was/am/wil be talking about telephony features
The "rudimentary" phone features that you are so hung up on are the end result of a series of tradeoffs and choices that Apple made, driven by criteria such as size, battery life, ease of use and application integration. You may not care for some of those tradeoffs, but Apple had its reasons for all of them.
Tradeoffs? Really? Do you honestly have any experience with a high-end phone? I ask this seriously. These so called "rudimentary" features are basic in all devices sans the iPhone in all devices that claim to be phones. These tradeoffs are all software driven, minus the camera so your argument is baseless.
The months to come will bring a flood of new apps from third party developers, as well as further refinements and enhancements of the platform by Apple itself.
You can have them now if you do not mind jailbreaking you phone.
How you get "it's just an iPod with some phone stuff tossed on" out of all of that is very mysterious to me.
The "rudimentary" features are missing from the iPod Touch as well, but it is designed as an iPod, not a phone, so my argument still stands. Until the iPhone can perform: 1-4, and 6-7, it will remain an iPod with some phoning capabilities.
I can tell you now 2 things:-
1) Jobs arrogance cannot be over stated. He believes in his vision, its US centric to an insulting degree, and if he comes across something he does not like, it is steam rolled over, or forgotten about.
2) Secondly, i base a phone's sucess on how often i see that phone. Three years ago, i bought a razr (its a piece of crap, but it looked cool), it was pretty pricey at the time, especially since contracts were not a big thing in Ireland, or the UK, but within a few months, i had seen that phone everywhere.
Fast forward a few months since the iphone was launched. I see that phone NOWHERE. No one i know, has one, no one they know has one. Reason being -
1) Weak tech
2) More importantly the price. Most people have said, nice, really like it, but i am not paying that amount of money.
The iphone is TOTALLY over priced, and it is NOT being adopted by the UK or Ireland (especially in Ireland, where we are forced to over pay by ridiculous amounts, and we dont even get visual voicemail)
To all the apple fanboys, grow up. The iphone is NOT a success in Europe at all.
In Germany they have cut it down to 99 euros, in the UK, they have halved the price.
Quite simply, Jobs looked at the european market, compared it to America, realized he couldn't make the same amount of money, but STILL decided to FORCE his plan down the European throat. Greedy companies leapt in behind him, and now the whole process is BARELY moving.
I have no doubt the iphone type device could succeed. But apple need to wise up, and stop ripping people off.
Right now, without a contract, the iphone could have been THE most popular handset in Europe.
Its not. Its not going to be either. In short, its failing.
What correction are you talking about? You mean the sudden 99 Euro prices? You seem to forget, Europeans are used to paying full price for phones. There are some subsidizing here but Europeans don't cry about the price of phones the way American subscribers do.
There are actually several articles that say Europeans don't pay full price for phones.
If this is the best you got then the iPhone is doomed. The iPhone is not a biz grade phone, nor even a real smart phone. It is an iPod with phone.
You are not the first to declare an Apple product doomed. Its actually quite a cliche. I'm surprised you said it.
Unless you missed the big announcement active sync is coming. We will have to wait to see how it does.
What is the definition of a " real smartphone"?
You keep calling the iPhone an iPod. You need to stop that. It makes you sound quite uninformed. The iPod is one of 17 apps that come with the iPhone. Studies have shown Mail app, Safari, and the phone app are used more than the iPod app.
The iPhone simply falls short. Just for fun, compare the N82 features with those of the iPhone and see the difference.
I care less about a long feature list as I care about the quality and usability of the features.
My N82 does this already.
You really need to stop. You don't know what you are talking about.
Currently no shipping desktop browser engine fully supports HTML 5.
The S60 browser on your N82 based on the WebKit engine certainly does not support it because WebKit does not yet fully support it.
No, no, no, no again, nope, nein, ei, and so on. CRIPPLED. So you "crippled is pretty much meaningless" is pretty much meaningless as well as it is based on inaccuracies. When I got my iPhone (are you paying attention anantksundaram), I knew what it could and could not do. I do not use it regularly. I use it sometimes as a work phone for the days when I want to have a vid or some music with me. Most of the time it sits in a draw.
This is all your subjective opinion. You may think highly of your opinion, but don't confuse it for facts.