Clearly being able to add apps was something that was apart of the iPhone OS. It was a functionality Apple had not yet enabled. The SDK was announced in October, four months after the iPhone's launch. Clearly it was something Apple had been working on all along it just wasn't ready yet.
My main point is that the difference between a smartphone and a low end feature phone is not only the ability to add apps, but an OS that is built on an architecture designed to grow for many years.
LOL now you're just chopping and changing what would be classed as a smartphone to suit. What next? A device has to be manufactured by Apple to be classed as a smartphone? Wow, Apple has 100% smartphone Market share!
If you read through all of my posts you will see the same basic point, I haven't changed it at all. I've said feature phones are gaining some of the functionality and apps that smartphone's have had, which is blurring the line between the two. But the primary difference is that a smartphone has been designed with a more sophisticated OS that is intended to add functionality and grow. That is the primary difference I've highlighted this entire thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
LOL now you're just chopping and changing what would be classed as a smartphone to suit. What next? A device has to be manufactured by Apple to be classed as a smartphone? Wow, Apple has 100% smartphone Market share!
See, this is the point that most everyone has gotten into their brain but a few simply refuse to: Apple doesn't give a flying fuck about phones outside the smartphone market, and does not and will not ever compete in that market, making comparisons outside that market totally pointless.
Now, a time will come when the vast majority of the mobile phone market IS the smartphone market, but until that day.......
For what it's worth, I think 1.5% is impressive. Think about how huge the overall market is... 1.5% is a lot of phones!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
As much as we protested, the original iPhone was jammed down our necks as a smartphone, and thus that definition has to stand today. You can't suddenly change the goal posts just because it suits
I've always said the definition of a smartphone is one that you can install native applications on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Quote:
One would buy an iPhone when he is shopping for a phone. In most countries it is sold solely by mobile operators. Oh, and the service provided by the mobile operator is an integral part of the iPhone experience. The mobile operators decide which phones to advertise, subsidize and push for sale. In all these the iPhone competes with other phones.
That indeed is how it has been. That's what Apple is changing.
No no no no no!
If I want a Nokia smartphone, but don't want a contract, I can buy it direct from Nokia, unlocked for all networks. This is not true for iPhone! iPhone is more restrictive than the competition, not less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Symbian wasn't originally built to be touchscreen.
Maybe not originally, since the Psion 3 had no touchscreen, but the first touchscreen devices using what we now call Symbian (then known as EPOC) were released in 1997.
You may be confusing Symbian (the operating system) with Nokia's Series 60 (the UI). If so, you're correct: the touchscreen Series 60 phones are a bit weird.
You know, there's no reason for considering what a "smart phone" is, or understanding that very small, portable computers are set to become a normal part of everyday life for a great many people, has to hinge on some imagined plot to make Apple look good.
I don't think the "1.5% of all phones" is particularly relevant, but it certainly isn't because I think it makes Apple's mobile efforts look bad, or good, or anything. I just think it's a pointless metric that willfully ignores what's actually happening with the technology.
TenoBell has it right: there are some handsets on the market with operating systems designed to be multifunction computing devices, extensible to larger or different form factors. And there are phones, which, with a lot of bolting on and operator services can mimic some of that functionality, but can only go so far before they collapse under their own weight. It's just as if the makers of, say, the last generation of electronic typewriter "word processors" saw that computers were the next big thing, and started to add "icons" and "apps" to the screens of their machines, sitting on top of a very limited system designed to do one thing well.
You just can't grow an OS that way. And no one would confuse such a device with a "computer", or demand that "computer sales" be set against the sales of electronic typewriters, since they both do word processing, plus now the electronic typewriters now have pictures of things on their screens, so there's kinda a "grey area."
Of course, it would have been an easier argument to make in the nascent days of computers, since computers were somewhat constrained in their functionality owing owing to hardware limitations. But it didn't take long for the distinction to become clear to even the least tech oriented, casual consumer.
And, as we know, "typewriters" went the way of the dodo, since these newfangled "computer" things could do everything you did with a typewriter, plus a great deal more. And no doubt there was a vocal faction explaining that most people "just needed to write a letter", so the added expense of a computer would keep the typewriter industry going for years to come.
You know, there's no reason for considering what a "smart phone" is, or understanding that very small, portable computers are set to become a normal part of everyday life for a great many people, has to hinge on some imagined plot to make Apple look good.
I don't think the "1.5% of all phones" is particularly relevant, but it certainly isn't because I think it makes Apple's mobile efforts look bad, or good, or anything. I just think it's a pointless metric that willfully ignores what's actually happening with the technology.
TenoBell has it right: there are some handsets on the market with operating systems designed to be multifunction computing devices, extensible to larger or different form factors. And there are phones, which, with a lot of bolting on and operator services can mimic some of that functionality, but can only go so far before they collapse under their own weight. It's just as if the makers of, say, the last generation of electronic typewriter "word processors" saw that computers were the next big thing, and started to add "icons" and "apps" to the screens of their machines, sitting on top of a very limited system designed to do one thing well.
You just can't grow an OS that way. And no one would confuse such a device with a "computer", or demand that "computer sales" be set against the sales of electronic typewriters, since they both do word processing, plus now the electronic typewriters now have pictures of things on their screens, so there's kinda a "grey area."
Of course, it would have been an easier argument to make in the nascent days of computers, since computers were somewhat constrained in their functionality owing owing to hardware limitations. But it didn't take long for the distinction to become clear to even the least tech oriented, casual consumer.
And, as we know, "typewriters" went the way of the dodo, since these newfangled "computer" things could do everything you did with a typewriter, plus a great deal more. And no doubt there was a vocal faction explaining that most people "just needed to write a letter", so the added expense of a computer would keep the typewriter industry going for years to come.
I agree with you. However, there are a LOT of people around here who were absolutely adament on the iPhone's release that it was a smartphone, even without the ability to extend the functionality through installing additional software. I distinctively remember us nay-sayers being shouted down and ridiculed for even daring to suggest that the iPhone was NOT a smartphone. However, all of sudden the tables seem to have turned, and now a device has to have the ability to add functionality through installing additional software to be classified a smartphone.
I clearly missed the public apology that those people made for being wrong about the iPhone being a smartphone, and all the retractions that the technology blogs and research companies made, and I obviously missed Apple's statement where they finally admitted the iPhone didn't become a smartphone until 2.0. Can you point me to that?
If you can't point to that statement, then it means the definition of a smartphone set by the original iPhone still stands - i.e., there is NO requirement to be able to install additional software for the device to be considered a smartphone as they nearly all do email, internet, music, calls, texts, etc, everything that was trumpetted about the original iPhone. As such, that means nearly *every* device on the market is a smartphone, which means the iPhone needs to be compared to ALL of those devices, not just a select few.
"Smartphone" is a term invented by companies who make phones to help market their phones, so, it's not going to be possible to say definitively what a smartphone really is. It appears that many of the phones out there today can be considered "smartphones" because they can do a lot more than just make phone calls.
That's a pretty subjective definition of a smartphone and by the letter of that definition the iPhone still isn't a smartphone.
Quote:
I've always said the definition of a smartphone is one that you can install native applications on.
The iPhone OS was hacked and installing jailbroken apps from the beginning. The ability to install apps was always there.
Quote:
No no no no no!
If I want a Nokia smartphone, but don't want a contract, I can buy it direct from Nokia, unlocked for all networks. This is not true for iPhone! iPhone is more restrictive than the competition, not less.
You have to look at the bigger picture and trade offs to each. The ability to buy a phone and use it on any network. The carrier is able to charge what ever outrageous price they choose for data and you have to abide by whatever restrictive rules they have in place.
What Apple won in its deal with the iPhone. The carrier had to charge a reasonable rate for unlimited data, the carrier is unable to place restrictions or charge for extra services on the iPhone.
Quote:
You may be confusing Symbian (the operating system) with Nokia's Series 60 (the UI). If so, you're correct: the touchscreen Series 60 phones are a bit weird.
You don't remember jailbroken iPhone and jailbroken apps? The ability to install apps was always apart of the OS. Apple did not officially support this function until version 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
I agree with you. However, there are a LOT of people around here who were absolutely adament on the iPhone's release that it was a smartphone, even without the ability to extend the functionality through installing additional software. I distinctively remember us nay-sayers being shouted down and ridiculed for even daring to suggest that the iPhone was NOT a smartphone. However, all of sudden the tables seem to have turned, and now a device has to have the ability to add functionality through installing additional software to be classified a smartphone.
You don't remember jailbroken iPhone and jailbroken apps? The ability to install apps was always apart of the OS. Apple did not officially support this function until version 2.
Let's keep it sensible here. You know fine well as I do that Apple did not intend or support this in anyway, and the vast majority of people would never have done it. For the sake of this definition, let's keep to the device that the manufacturers intended us to have, not one that is hacked
Quote:
What Apple won in its deal with the iPhone. The carrier had to charge a reasonable rate for unlimited data, the carrier is unable to place restrictions or charge for extra services on the iPhone.
There were reasonable data rates long before the iPhone existed. I had T-Mobile web n walk before the iPhone was ever found in a shop, and that's the same price as the O2 data add-on. The iPhone certainly did not set any benchmark as far as data plans are concerned, at least not in the UK.
Let's keep it sensible here. You know fine well as I do that Apple did not intend or support this in anyway, and the vast majority of people would never have done it. For the sake of this definition, let's keep to the device that the manufacturers intended us to have, not one that is hacked
No I don't believe that. People like to believe that public outrage made Apple change its stance on apps. There have been many articles saying that there is no way Apple could have developed a public SDK, API's, and full documentation in the few months between the iPhone's launch and the release of the SDK.
Quote:
There were reasonable data rates long before the iPhone existed. I had T-Mobile web n walk before the iPhone was ever found in a shop, and that's the same price as the O2 data add-on. The iPhone certainly did not set any benchmark as far as data plans are concerned, at least not in the UK.
I'm not going to go digging for it now. But there was an article (I believe from the Financial Times) when O2 first launched the iPhone and how expensive the average data rates were and how reasonable the unlimited rates were for the iPhone at the time.
As an aside data rates on feature phones are generally lower than they are for full smartphones. T-Mobile may not consider a web n walk the equivalent of a Nokia N96 or BlackBerry.
No I don't believe that. People like to believe that public outrage made Apple change its stance on apps. There have been many articles saying that there is no way Apple could have developed a public SDK, API's, and full documentation in the few months between the iPhone's launch and the release of the SDK.
In fact, Jobs wrote an open letter in October 2007, just months after the initial release, explaining that yes, an SDK was coming, but it was going to take a while because they wanted to get it right and make it secure.
As an aside data rates on feature phones are generally lower than they are for full smartphones. T-Mobile may not consider a web n walk the equivalent of a Nokia N96 or BlackBerry.
The data plans are the same price regardless of what phone you have, whether it be a smartphone or feature phone.
Perhaps its different for the UK but this is how it works in the US to differentiate services. Looking at O2 UK they do sell the iPhone and Blackberry with different service tariffs than the other phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
The data plans are the same price regardless of what phone you have, whether it be a smartphone or feature phone.
If I want a Nokia smartphone, but don't want a contract, I can buy it direct from Nokia, unlocked for all networks. This is not true for iPhone! iPhone is more restrictive than the competition, not less
Nokia's mature phone maker. They know how to make phones, which need less paternal care than others.
We were specifically talking about carriers in the US.
The title of the thread is "iPhone Still Just 1.5% Of Mobile Market", it doesn't mention US only in there. And since the US/Canadian market is only 8% of the entire cellphone market, limiting it to US only looks very bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
For $29,000 a stripped down no frills car is the hook. Once you begin to add any creature comforts the price quickly grows.
I think you will find that with all vehicle manufactures. They have low level models, and high priced models. Honda sells expensive cars as well.
That's a pretty subjective definition of a smartphone and by the letter of that definition the iPhone still isn't a smartphone.
Their definition:
a smartphone is a platform device that allows software to be installed
By the letter of that definition, the iPhone is now a smartphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You have to look at the bigger picture and trade offs to each. The ability to buy a phone and use it on any network. The carrier is able to charge what ever outrageous price they choose for data and you have to abide by whatever restrictive rules they have in place.
What Apple won in its deal with the iPhone. The carrier had to charge a reasonable rate for unlimited data, the carrier is unable to place restrictions or charge for extra services on the iPhone.
We still already had that. Before the iPhone, T-mobile charged £7.50 a month for unlimited internet. (May have had a 2GB fair use cap or something.) Also, with the Nokias and their ilk, you could choose to buy the phone from a network (and get it cheaper, but locked) or from the manufacturer (and pay more but get it unlocked). With the iPhone, there is not that choice.
When the iPhone came out, you had to pay a larger price than usual and it was still locked! At least now the phone is free, as contract phones usually are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
As an aside data rates on feature phones are generally lower than they are for full smartphones. T-Mobile may not consider a web n walk the equivalent of a Nokia N96 or BlackBerry.
The thing with the UK phone market is, you pay for the service, it doesn't matter what phone you use on it. So if I bought myself an unlocked smartphone and stuck my SIM card in it, I could use my existing contract, whatever the rates are. The notion of paying more to use a smartphone is really odd!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Perhaps its different for the UK but this is how it works in the US to differentiate services. Looking at O2 UK they do sell the iPhone and Blackberry with different service tariffs than the other phones.
Yes, that's true, but there's nothing to stop you swapping around afterwards. (In fact, that's not usual for blackberries; my father just bought one for my sister, on Orange, and the plan he chose was the best value that Orange did.)
My point is the iPhone's business model doesn't fit very well with UK practices. It's really rare to find a contract tied to a device, but they try it with the iPhone. People still get it, because the contract's not too bad and the phone's really good. But it's certainly not making the industry any more consumer-friendly: less so, in fact, since competition usually brings the price right down!
This is contrary to the reports about the UK mobile industry back in 2007 when the iPhone was launched. Are you saying its always been this way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya
The thing with the UK phone market is, you pay for the service, it doesn't matter what phone you use on it. So if I bought myself an unlocked smartphone and stuck my SIM card in it, I could use my existing contract, whatever the rates are. The notion of paying more to use a smartphone is really odd!
Here is an article comparing data tariffs for the UK carriers on June 25, 2007. The article explains that at the time mobile data tariffs were not equal across all carriers or necessarily across all phones. The prices are scattered and not so competitive across all carriers. They generally all offered data caps with expensive charges if you go over the cap.
T-Mobile, 3, O2, and Orange offered differing prices limited to 1GB per month. Vodaphone offered 120MB per month. Today all of these service tariffs and prices are entirely different.
"To cut a long story short, our search became a head-spinning stumble through the land of confusion; a land where ‘unlimited’ really means ‘limited’, where charges for business users are often clearer than for the rest of us, and where packages, bundles, add-ons and free trials are order of the day."
Here is an article comparing data tariffs for the UK carriers on June 25, 2007. The article explains that at the time mobile data tariffs were not equal across all carriers or necessarily across all phones. The prices are scattered and not so competitive across all carriers. They generally all offered data caps with expensive charges if you go over the cap.
T-Mobile, 3, O2, and Orange offered differing prices limited to 1GB per month. Vodaphone offered 120MB per month. Today all of these service tariffs and prices are entirely different.
"To cut a long story short, our search became a head-spinning stumble through the land of confusion; a land where ?unlimited? really means ?limited?, where charges for business users are often clearer than for the rest of us, and where packages, bundles, add-ons and free trials are order of the day."
Web n walk is still £7.50pm with a 1gb 'fair use', 3 is still £5pm for 1gb 'fair use', all that's happened is that all networks now offer some sort of data plan, but we were heading that way anyway prior to the iPhone.
Comments
Clearly being able to add apps was something that was apart of the iPhone OS. It was a functionality Apple had not yet enabled. The SDK was announced in October, four months after the iPhone's launch. Clearly it was something Apple had been working on all along it just wasn't ready yet.
My main point is that the difference between a smartphone and a low end feature phone is not only the ability to add apps, but an OS that is built on an architecture designed to grow for many years.
LOL now you're just chopping and changing what would be classed as a smartphone to suit. What next? A device has to be manufactured by Apple to be classed as a smartphone? Wow, Apple has 100% smartphone Market share!
LOL now you're just chopping and changing what would be classed as a smartphone to suit. What next? A device has to be manufactured by Apple to be classed as a smartphone? Wow, Apple has 100% smartphone Market share!
See, this is the point that most everyone has gotten into their brain but a few simply refuse to: Apple doesn't give a flying fuck about phones outside the smartphone market, and does not and will not ever compete in that market, making comparisons outside that market totally pointless.
Now, a time will come when the vast majority of the mobile phone market IS the smartphone market, but until that day.......
Don't forget that the iPhone was not a smartphone until OS 2.0. (It was in the category called Feature Phones.)
For what it's worth, I think 1.5% is impressive. Think about how huge the overall market is... 1.5% is a lot of phones!
As much as we protested, the original iPhone was jammed down our necks as a smartphone, and thus that definition has to stand today. You can't suddenly change the goal posts just because it suits
I've always said the definition of a smartphone is one that you can install native applications on.
One would buy an iPhone when he is shopping for a phone. In most countries it is sold solely by mobile operators. Oh, and the service provided by the mobile operator is an integral part of the iPhone experience. The mobile operators decide which phones to advertise, subsidize and push for sale. In all these the iPhone competes with other phones.
That indeed is how it has been. That's what Apple is changing.
No no no no no!
If I want a Nokia smartphone, but don't want a contract, I can buy it direct from Nokia, unlocked for all networks. This is not true for iPhone! iPhone is more restrictive than the competition, not less.
Symbian wasn't originally built to be touchscreen.
Maybe not originally, since the Psion 3 had no touchscreen, but the first touchscreen devices using what we now call Symbian (then known as EPOC) were released in 1997.
You may be confusing Symbian (the operating system) with Nokia's Series 60 (the UI). If so, you're correct: the touchscreen Series 60 phones are a bit weird.
Amorya
I don't think the "1.5% of all phones" is particularly relevant, but it certainly isn't because I think it makes Apple's mobile efforts look bad, or good, or anything. I just think it's a pointless metric that willfully ignores what's actually happening with the technology.
TenoBell has it right: there are some handsets on the market with operating systems designed to be multifunction computing devices, extensible to larger or different form factors. And there are phones, which, with a lot of bolting on and operator services can mimic some of that functionality, but can only go so far before they collapse under their own weight. It's just as if the makers of, say, the last generation of electronic typewriter "word processors" saw that computers were the next big thing, and started to add "icons" and "apps" to the screens of their machines, sitting on top of a very limited system designed to do one thing well.
You just can't grow an OS that way. And no one would confuse such a device with a "computer", or demand that "computer sales" be set against the sales of electronic typewriters, since they both do word processing, plus now the electronic typewriters now have pictures of things on their screens, so there's kinda a "grey area."
Of course, it would have been an easier argument to make in the nascent days of computers, since computers were somewhat constrained in their functionality owing owing to hardware limitations. But it didn't take long for the distinction to become clear to even the least tech oriented, casual consumer.
And, as we know, "typewriters" went the way of the dodo, since these newfangled "computer" things could do everything you did with a typewriter, plus a great deal more. And no doubt there was a vocal faction explaining that most people "just needed to write a letter", so the added expense of a computer would keep the typewriter industry going for years to come.
You know, there's no reason for considering what a "smart phone" is, or understanding that very small, portable computers are set to become a normal part of everyday life for a great many people, has to hinge on some imagined plot to make Apple look good.
I don't think the "1.5% of all phones" is particularly relevant, but it certainly isn't because I think it makes Apple's mobile efforts look bad, or good, or anything. I just think it's a pointless metric that willfully ignores what's actually happening with the technology.
TenoBell has it right: there are some handsets on the market with operating systems designed to be multifunction computing devices, extensible to larger or different form factors. And there are phones, which, with a lot of bolting on and operator services can mimic some of that functionality, but can only go so far before they collapse under their own weight. It's just as if the makers of, say, the last generation of electronic typewriter "word processors" saw that computers were the next big thing, and started to add "icons" and "apps" to the screens of their machines, sitting on top of a very limited system designed to do one thing well.
You just can't grow an OS that way. And no one would confuse such a device with a "computer", or demand that "computer sales" be set against the sales of electronic typewriters, since they both do word processing, plus now the electronic typewriters now have pictures of things on their screens, so there's kinda a "grey area."
Of course, it would have been an easier argument to make in the nascent days of computers, since computers were somewhat constrained in their functionality owing owing to hardware limitations. But it didn't take long for the distinction to become clear to even the least tech oriented, casual consumer.
And, as we know, "typewriters" went the way of the dodo, since these newfangled "computer" things could do everything you did with a typewriter, plus a great deal more. And no doubt there was a vocal faction explaining that most people "just needed to write a letter", so the added expense of a computer would keep the typewriter industry going for years to come.
I agree with you. However, there are a LOT of people around here who were absolutely adament on the iPhone's release that it was a smartphone, even without the ability to extend the functionality through installing additional software. I distinctively remember us nay-sayers being shouted down and ridiculed for even daring to suggest that the iPhone was NOT a smartphone. However, all of sudden the tables seem to have turned, and now a device has to have the ability to add functionality through installing additional software to be classified a smartphone.
I clearly missed the public apology that those people made for being wrong about the iPhone being a smartphone, and all the retractions that the technology blogs and research companies made, and I obviously missed Apple's statement where they finally admitted the iPhone didn't become a smartphone until 2.0. Can you point me to that?
If you can't point to that statement, then it means the definition of a smartphone set by the original iPhone still stands - i.e., there is NO requirement to be able to install additional software for the device to be considered a smartphone as they nearly all do email, internet, music, calls, texts, etc, everything that was trumpetted about the original iPhone. As such, that means nearly *every* device on the market is a smartphone, which means the iPhone needs to be compared to ALL of those devices, not just a select few.
Don't forget that the iPhone was not a smartphone until OS 2.0. (It was in the category called Feature Phones.)
That's a pretty subjective definition of a smartphone and by the letter of that definition the iPhone still isn't a smartphone.
I've always said the definition of a smartphone is one that you can install native applications on.
The iPhone OS was hacked and installing jailbroken apps from the beginning. The ability to install apps was always there.
No no no no no!
If I want a Nokia smartphone, but don't want a contract, I can buy it direct from Nokia, unlocked for all networks. This is not true for iPhone! iPhone is more restrictive than the competition, not less.
You have to look at the bigger picture and trade offs to each. The ability to buy a phone and use it on any network. The carrier is able to charge what ever outrageous price they choose for data and you have to abide by whatever restrictive rules they have in place.
What Apple won in its deal with the iPhone. The carrier had to charge a reasonable rate for unlimited data, the carrier is unable to place restrictions or charge for extra services on the iPhone.
You may be confusing Symbian (the operating system) with Nokia's Series 60 (the UI). If so, you're correct: the touchscreen Series 60 phones are a bit weird.
Yes I was referring to S60.
I agree with you. However, there are a LOT of people around here who were absolutely adament on the iPhone's release that it was a smartphone, even without the ability to extend the functionality through installing additional software. I distinctively remember us nay-sayers being shouted down and ridiculed for even daring to suggest that the iPhone was NOT a smartphone. However, all of sudden the tables seem to have turned, and now a device has to have the ability to add functionality through installing additional software to be classified a smartphone.
You don't remember jailbroken iPhone and jailbroken apps? The ability to install apps was always apart of the OS. Apple did not officially support this function until version 2.
Let's keep it sensible here. You know fine well as I do that Apple did not intend or support this in anyway, and the vast majority of people would never have done it. For the sake of this definition, let's keep to the device that the manufacturers intended us to have, not one that is hacked
What Apple won in its deal with the iPhone. The carrier had to charge a reasonable rate for unlimited data, the carrier is unable to place restrictions or charge for extra services on the iPhone.
There were reasonable data rates long before the iPhone existed. I had T-Mobile web n walk before the iPhone was ever found in a shop, and that's the same price as the O2 data add-on. The iPhone certainly did not set any benchmark as far as data plans are concerned, at least not in the UK.
Let's keep it sensible here. You know fine well as I do that Apple did not intend or support this in anyway, and the vast majority of people would never have done it. For the sake of this definition, let's keep to the device that the manufacturers intended us to have, not one that is hacked
No I don't believe that. People like to believe that public outrage made Apple change its stance on apps. There have been many articles saying that there is no way Apple could have developed a public SDK, API's, and full documentation in the few months between the iPhone's launch and the release of the SDK.
There were reasonable data rates long before the iPhone existed. I had T-Mobile web n walk before the iPhone was ever found in a shop, and that's the same price as the O2 data add-on. The iPhone certainly did not set any benchmark as far as data plans are concerned, at least not in the UK.
I'm not going to go digging for it now. But there was an article (I believe from the Financial Times) when O2 first launched the iPhone and how expensive the average data rates were and how reasonable the unlimited rates were for the iPhone at the time.
As an aside data rates on feature phones are generally lower than they are for full smartphones. T-Mobile may not consider a web n walk the equivalent of a Nokia N96 or BlackBerry.
No I don't believe that. People like to believe that public outrage made Apple change its stance on apps. There have been many articles saying that there is no way Apple could have developed a public SDK, API's, and full documentation in the few months between the iPhone's launch and the release of the SDK.
In fact, Jobs wrote an open letter in October 2007, just months after the initial release, explaining that yes, an SDK was coming, but it was going to take a while because they wanted to get it right and make it secure.
As an aside data rates on feature phones are generally lower than they are for full smartphones. T-Mobile may not consider a web n walk the equivalent of a Nokia N96 or BlackBerry.
The data plans are the same price regardless of what phone you have, whether it be a smartphone or feature phone.
The data plans are the same price regardless of what phone you have, whether it be a smartphone or feature phone.
If I want a Nokia smartphone, but don't want a contract, I can buy it direct from Nokia, unlocked for all networks. This is not true for iPhone! iPhone is more restrictive than the competition, not less
Nokia's mature phone maker. They know how to make phones, which need less paternal care than others.
We were specifically talking about carriers in the US.
The title of the thread is "iPhone Still Just 1.5% Of Mobile Market", it doesn't mention US only in there. And since the US/Canadian market is only 8% of the entire cellphone market, limiting it to US only looks very bad.
For $29,000 a stripped down no frills car is the hook. Once you begin to add any creature comforts the price quickly grows.
I think you will find that with all vehicle manufactures. They have low level models, and high priced models. Honda sells expensive cars as well.
That's a pretty subjective definition of a smartphone and by the letter of that definition the iPhone still isn't a smartphone.
Their definition:
a smartphone is a platform device that allows software to be installed
By the letter of that definition, the iPhone is now a smartphone.
You have to look at the bigger picture and trade offs to each. The ability to buy a phone and use it on any network. The carrier is able to charge what ever outrageous price they choose for data and you have to abide by whatever restrictive rules they have in place.
What Apple won in its deal with the iPhone. The carrier had to charge a reasonable rate for unlimited data, the carrier is unable to place restrictions or charge for extra services on the iPhone.
We still already had that. Before the iPhone, T-mobile charged £7.50 a month for unlimited internet. (May have had a 2GB fair use cap or something.) Also, with the Nokias and their ilk, you could choose to buy the phone from a network (and get it cheaper, but locked) or from the manufacturer (and pay more but get it unlocked). With the iPhone, there is not that choice.
When the iPhone came out, you had to pay a larger price than usual and it was still locked! At least now the phone is free, as contract phones usually are.
As an aside data rates on feature phones are generally lower than they are for full smartphones. T-Mobile may not consider a web n walk the equivalent of a Nokia N96 or BlackBerry.
The thing with the UK phone market is, you pay for the service, it doesn't matter what phone you use on it. So if I bought myself an unlocked smartphone and stuck my SIM card in it, I could use my existing contract, whatever the rates are. The notion of paying more to use a smartphone is really odd!
Perhaps its different for the UK but this is how it works in the US to differentiate services. Looking at O2 UK they do sell the iPhone and Blackberry with different service tariffs than the other phones.
Yes, that's true, but there's nothing to stop you swapping around afterwards. (In fact, that's not usual for blackberries; my father just bought one for my sister, on Orange, and the plan he chose was the best value that Orange did.)
My point is the iPhone's business model doesn't fit very well with UK practices. It's really rare to find a contract tied to a device, but they try it with the iPhone. People still get it, because the contract's not too bad and the phone's really good. But it's certainly not making the industry any more consumer-friendly: less so, in fact, since competition usually brings the price right down!
Amorya
The thing with the UK phone market is, you pay for the service, it doesn't matter what phone you use on it. So if I bought myself an unlocked smartphone and stuck my SIM card in it, I could use my existing contract, whatever the rates are. The notion of paying more to use a smartphone is really odd!
This is contrary to the reports about the UK mobile industry back in 2007 when the iPhone was launched. Are you saying its always been this way?
Yeah of course. You pay for the contract. You can use that on any device you like, or not at all if you choose! It's never been any different.
T-Mobile, 3, O2, and Orange offered differing prices limited to 1GB per month. Vodaphone offered 120MB per month. Today all of these service tariffs and prices are entirely different.
"To cut a long story short, our search became a head-spinning stumble through the land of confusion; a land where ‘unlimited’ really means ‘limited’, where charges for business users are often clearer than for the rest of us, and where packages, bundles, add-ons and free trials are order of the day."
A Pocket Picks special: UK mobile phone data plans unravelled
Here is an article comparing data tariffs for the UK carriers on June 25, 2007. The article explains that at the time mobile data tariffs were not equal across all carriers or necessarily across all phones. The prices are scattered and not so competitive across all carriers. They generally all offered data caps with expensive charges if you go over the cap.
T-Mobile, 3, O2, and Orange offered differing prices limited to 1GB per month. Vodaphone offered 120MB per month. Today all of these service tariffs and prices are entirely different.
"To cut a long story short, our search became a head-spinning stumble through the land of confusion; a land where ?unlimited? really means ?limited?, where charges for business users are often clearer than for the rest of us, and where packages, bundles, add-ons and free trials are order of the day."
A Pocket Picks special: UK mobile phone data plans unravelled
Web n walk is still £7.50pm with a 1gb 'fair use', 3 is still £5pm for 1gb 'fair use', all that's happened is that all networks now offer some sort of data plan, but we were heading that way anyway prior to the iPhone.