Every new data technology starts out as a barely sustainable model, then makes some money, then due to advances and economy of scale gets more profitable. They all eventually sell you more for less. Remember the days of Ma bell, when they had you convinced that every call incurred a real fee that you had to pay for as if they hired someone to run a special cable to some random person's house? See what you pay for a fixed rate landline now? Ditto cell phones. The first wave of contracts were all by the minute. Now you pay a fixed rate the worst of which is a bargain compared to the best of rates in the first wave. Ditto cable. Ditto satellite. Care to see my ancient MCIMail bills? Remember paying $11 per hour for CompuServe? Things get cheaper. I don't think it's usurious, but at some point the lines on the graph cross. For a while they cruise, and then competition starts.
I wouldn't want to argue that metered service is inherently more expensive than flat-rate service. The truth is, flat rate services tend to mask the cost more successfully. I read somewhere recently that the average actual cost per minute of cell phone service is close to $3.00. Alá carte isn't always more expensive than all-you-can-eat. It depends.
That is not likely to happen. Apple is making exclusive deals with a single carrier in every country that allows it.
Is this really true? Did the Australian government mandate multiple carriers for the iPhone?
If I am not mistaken, there was an "Apple statement" indicating that they were not aversed to "experimenting", in relation to exclusive or multiple deals, especially when they went worldwide. Didn't they not consider "non-exclusive" deals also in other countries, like in Latin America? Or, even Italy -- even before the EU policy went into effect?
My own take in the matter is that Apple will enter into an agreement that will maximize their profit. In a new market, and with a very "hot product", exclusive deals may make sense. There is no rational reason why Apple will stick to exclusive deals, if it will find other alternatives more profitable or more advantageous to its long term plans.
The situation might have been different in the US. From my previous readings about the history of the iPhone, Apple first approached Verizon. One can surmise that Apple thought that Verizon was the most "advanced telecommunications" company, and/or that Verizon has a greater stranglehold of the most lucrative telecommunications market (the US Northeast, including NYC), at the time. When Verizon did not agree to the terms imposed by Apple (or by Steve Jobs), Apple decided to look for a partner that will allow them the control that was sought.
It turned out to be the telecommunications company that was later on bought by AT&T. And, the former telecommunications company (latter on AT&T) was wise enough to extract a long term deal from Apple. In a sense, AT&T got the better deal because Apple could not impose that AT&T can sell only the iPhone. That Apple cannot impose exclusivity -- i.e., iPhone will be the only one sold by a telephone company -- was true then, now or in the future.
Considering the aforementioned, why would Apple stick exclusively with AT&T, forever? Only if it is to Apple's advantage -- maximal profit; and/or, if exclusivity would ensure that Apple will retain its dominance in an increasingly competitive smart phone market.
In fact, Apple may consider the latter more critical in the long run, than short run maximal profit. If this is how Apple thinks -- and this should be more clear by next year or the year after when AT&T and Verizon will have compatible technologies -- I see no reason why Apple will not consider Verizon, as additional partner. If the rumor is true, it might even have already entered into exploratory talks with Verizon, if not the iPhone, some other mobile computing products.
What migth remain is that Apple will insist on complete control of its products rather than allow telecommunications companies to tamper with it. This might be the deal breaker when it comes with any future deals with companies, like Verizon. There is a reason to believe however that Apple may be more flexible. For example, in Japan, after much negotiation, they allowed some features to be introduced to adapt to local telecommunications customs. Will it allow more flexibility in China? This should be more clear, with the new products announced next week, or those coming out in the future.
My first gen iPhone contract is nearly up...... Apple builds beautiful products, but it doesn't rise above its core value if the service provider SUCKS.
So what's the deal with AT&T when your contract is up? Can't you transfer over to another carrier?
Palm is to the iPhone was Microsoft was to the original Mac. Mostly a copy of the product released a few years later.
What Apple should have done with the Mac was reduce the price to not let Microsoft in. And in fact Steve Jobs has said that is what he would have done if he were still at Apple. However this time around he is at Apple, and the rumored iPhone price drop will I believe happen.
The free market only allows innovators a short period of monopoly on a new idea, their period of reward for being so smart. When new competitors finally get their sh*t together, you have to adapt. Look at the iPod, still on top after all this time. Remember when Apple dropped the iPod price right as the Zune was about to come out. Microsoft publicly admitted they were caught off-guard.
The value of flat rate service can be a bit complex to determine. When I first got a mobile phone back in 1998. I paid Sprint $50 for 500 minutes a month. Now I pay AT&T $45 for 450 minutes a month. At last as far as daytime service nothing has changed in the dollar cost per minute over ten years. I don't talk a whole lot on the phone, with roll over minutes I have nearly 2000 daytime minutes stored in my roll over account. It can be argued I'm getting a better value for $45 than I did for $50 ten years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
I wouldn't want to argue that metered service is inherently more expensive than flat-rate service. The truth is, flat rate services tend to mask the cost more successfully. I read somewhere recently that the average actual cost per minute of cell phone service is close to $3.00. Alá carte isn't always more expensive than all-you-can-eat. It depends.
He doesn't. He makes things up all the time. You think he would provide a link or preface his remarks with "I think"? No - he blurts out unsubstantiated facts all the time.
You never need to preface something with 'I think'. You obviously think that else you wouldn't say it.
But that's not my point. I'm in a class of people who don't want or need data. It would be nice if they could remove it without losing the rest of the iPhone model. There's nothing technical preventing it, you have an opinion that it would ruin the business model, and there's no evidence that that's the case.
If you don't want or need data at all, you don't need an iPhone. (If you want data and voice just when you're in range of a wi-fi hotspot, you get an iPod touch.)
Now Apple could make another phone for voice only users. But it wouldn't be an iPhone, and Apple wouldn't ask the carrier for almost $600 dollars for it. (Why is it not an iPhone? Because Jobs said at least ten times during the debut in Jan 2007 that iPhone is a phone, iPod, and Internet communicator.)
The only obstacle is that Apple is not interested in making just a voice phone, in the same way, that they are not interested in making modems or wired/cordless phones or DVD players. They don't care that millions of people are still buying such things; those are not things that will continue to have growth five years from now. Apple is not interested in getting every one of your consumer electronics dollars; if they are going to introduce something new, it has to be in a market that they project to be growing in the next decade. And to them, a voice-only phone is not it.
You never need to preface something with 'I think'. You obviously think that else you wouldn't say it.
"I think", in the context of a discussion board, is just a variant on "in my opinion" or "it seems to me." Ideally, it's used to distinguish statements of objective fact from those of subjective belief, although in practice it's often used to mean something like "I'm not sure about this but I'm saying it anyway until someone calls me on it" or "I'm kind of thinking out loud here, bear with me."
"I think the Pre is poorly made" is different from "The Pre is poorly made", in that the latter implies actual knowledge of design details while the former suggests a passing impression.
"I think", in the context of a discussion board, is just a variant on "in my opinion" or "it seems to me." Ideally, it's used to distinguish statements of objective fact from those of subjective belief, although in practice it's often used to mean something like "I'm not sure about this but I'm saying it anyway until someone calls me on it" or "I'm kind of thinking out loud here, bear with me."
"I think the Pre is poorly made" is different from "The Pre is poorly made", in that the latter implies actual knowledge of design details while the former suggests a passing impression.
I understand what you are saying but to use your example, "The Pre is poorly made" is a statement of opinion unless the context was "The Pre is poorly made - I flipped the phone open and it all fell apart into a handful of pieces ..." It is simply my opinion if I said, "The Pre is poorly made because I hate Palm / Sprint / a real keyboard" etc. but did not provide the facts to support it.
I understand what you are saying but to use your example, "The Pre is poorly made" is a statement of opinion unless the context was "The Pre is poorly made - I flipped the phone open and it all fell apart into a handful of pieces ..." It is simply my opinion if I said, "The Pre is poorly made because I hate Palm / Sprint / a real keyboard" etc. but did not provide the facts to support it.
True enough, but in the semi-conversational mode of internet, which is not exactly chatting but not remotely formal correspondence, I think that "I think" acts as a kind of rhetorical throat clearing that signifies somewhere between opinion and random thought.
There's just something about flat statements of fact-- "The Pre is poorly made", or "Microsoft is a criminal enterprise", or "Teckstud is wanted for murder" that come off aggressive in a way that appending "I think" somewhat mitigates.
True enough, but in the semi-conversational mode of internet, which is not exactly chatting but not remotely formal correspondence, I think that "I think" acts as a kind of rhetorical throat clearing that signifies somewhere between opinion and random thought.
There's just something about flat statements of fact-- "The Pre is poorly made", or "Microsoft is a criminal enterprise", or "Teckstud is wanted for murder" that come off aggressive in a way that appending "I think" somewhat mitigates.
I can be 1000% certain the next iPhone will not be a slider phone. Apple is more into solid designs with no moving parts or removable hatches.
The obvious disadvantage to a slider phone is that you have to produce and inventory a whole different set of parts for international variants on the phone. The iPhone is very easy to "internationalize" since the keyboard is all software. They simply need different firmwares.
Every individual is looking for a solution to their own needs. Apple and AT&T present you with a particular value proposition. If it falls short (or exceeds) your particular needs, feel free to move on. Those who pontificate that Apple and AT&T need to adjust their business model to suit them are lunatics. Get a different phone if you don't like what's being offered. They're in the business of selling as many phones / contracts as possible.
That's a pretty hard line to take. It's like there's this take it or leave it position and the deal that is currently offered for the 3G is all that is and will ever be. The iPhone has been out for two years now. If they want to sell anymore in the US while still stuck to AT&T (maybe) they'll have to address what customers want, which two potential customers just illustrated.
Apple's got the fanboys and tech toy lovers who will bend their wants and wallets to get the most awesome gadgets. Now they may be going after ubiquity by taking over the smartphone/handheld computer market in much the same way that Windows dominated the desktop market early on, by getting everybody they can to jump on board and becoming the de facto standard. Their computers may be oriented toward the well off, but the iphone doesn't have to be.
To become ubiquitous they have to meet the customers halfway, and a lot of that has to do with pricing, and the model that they've been using may very well change with the introduction of these new iphones. I for one hope it does.
I thought that the whole AT&T iphone model was based on a low upfront price, tied to a 2 yr data plan. With AT&T kicking back some of the data plan money to Apple Inc.
You never need to preface something with 'I think'. You obviously think that else you wouldn't say it.
It is often a good practice to declare a personal opinion vs. repeating a known fact. Language isn't as simplistic as your statements would suggest. Some people have a hard time presenting their opinion as their opinion, and a lot of people make the mistake on occasion. Sometimes, whether by intention or by mistake, they word their opinion or conjecture as if what they said is a known fact. One particularly egregious case a month ago was when someone said flatly that Dell or HP was behind Psystar. We don't need that stuff becoming hearsay, it's doesn't look good.
Of course their are several things contributing to AT&T's bottom line, its a huge business. Their wireless business is the bulk of their revenue. The important part that applies to this discussion is that AT&T states that iPhone subsidies cut into their profits.
Providing wireless communications is their entire business model as is the business model for every mobile carrier. All of the mobile carriers spend billions on providing data services. The point of investing in infrastructure is to make profit from it. The flaw isn't in their business model its in your understanding of the type of service they provide.
With the razor thin profit margin's all phone carrier's make. The last island of full and continuing profit is data service's. So if AT&T doesn't make a fat solid profit with the iphone and other smart phone's, then how can they continue their incredible cash outlay building the so called 4g network. With out the iphone plowing the way AT&T would be in a world of hurt right now.
Remember all the unlit fiber optic cable the late 90's ??
It is often a good practice to declare a personal opinion vs. repeating a known fact. Language isn't as simplistic as your statements would suggest. Some people have a hard time presenting their opinion as their opinion, and a lot of people make the mistake on occasion. Sometimes, whether by intention or by mistake, they word their opinion or conjecture as if what they said is a known fact. One particularly egregious case a month ago was when someone said flatly that Dell or HP was behind Psystar. We don't need that stuff becoming hearsay, it's doesn't look good.
Yes Jeff pre-facing with > I think or maybe <is a very respectful way of talking. And with the crazy facts posted here at AI, its a must.
To pre-empt competition. Apple right now does not have any competition, but it needs to strengthen its position, since the competition is coming.
The Pre is a worthy competitor, according to most reviews, but might be a couple of years too late. OTOH, some of the future Android phones could really compete, and Apple needs to establish dominance early, so Developers mainly develop for their OS and not others...
To pre-empt competition. Apple right now does not have any competition, but it needs to strengthen its position, since the competition is coming.
The Pre is a worthy competitor, according to most reviews, but might be a couple of years too late. OTOH, some of the future Android phones could really compete, and Apple needs to establish dominance early, so Developers mainly develop for their OS and not others...
The pre will sell very very well and will be around for a long time. For what it is and what it can do, I think the pre is not so bad.
For the people who don't like the iphone and don't like the glass keyboard the Pre should fill that hole.
IF the Pre's tiny keyboard gains wide acceptance.
IF the Pre short battery life and constant battery replacing is also widely acceptable. Of note for $70 bucks, the Pre has the coolest phone charger ever.
IF these above things happen and Palm's addresse's Pre's other shortfalls then the pre will sell million's. And have it rightful place besides the iphone.
Developers already know about Web os. And they will write a bunch of cool apps for the Pre. Not 1/4 as large as the iphone's app store but as large as the other players are offering or will offer. It will take 2 years to build even a small strong app store.
Remember folks this is PALM with scores of old ex-apple people on board now. And just because all the pundits and their ilk say no developers will write for the Pre does not make it so.
Comments
Every new data technology starts out as a barely sustainable model, then makes some money, then due to advances and economy of scale gets more profitable. They all eventually sell you more for less. Remember the days of Ma bell, when they had you convinced that every call incurred a real fee that you had to pay for as if they hired someone to run a special cable to some random person's house? See what you pay for a fixed rate landline now? Ditto cell phones. The first wave of contracts were all by the minute. Now you pay a fixed rate the worst of which is a bargain compared to the best of rates in the first wave. Ditto cable. Ditto satellite. Care to see my ancient MCIMail bills? Remember paying $11 per hour for CompuServe? Things get cheaper. I don't think it's usurious, but at some point the lines on the graph cross. For a while they cruise, and then competition starts.
I wouldn't want to argue that metered service is inherently more expensive than flat-rate service. The truth is, flat rate services tend to mask the cost more successfully. I read somewhere recently that the average actual cost per minute of cell phone service is close to $3.00. Alá carte isn't always more expensive than all-you-can-eat. It depends.
That is not likely to happen. Apple is making exclusive deals with a single carrier in every country that allows it.
Is this really true? Did the Australian government mandate multiple carriers for the iPhone?
If I am not mistaken, there was an "Apple statement" indicating that they were not aversed to "experimenting", in relation to exclusive or multiple deals, especially when they went worldwide. Didn't they not consider "non-exclusive" deals also in other countries, like in Latin America? Or, even Italy -- even before the EU policy went into effect?
My own take in the matter is that Apple will enter into an agreement that will maximize their profit. In a new market, and with a very "hot product", exclusive deals may make sense. There is no rational reason why Apple will stick to exclusive deals, if it will find other alternatives more profitable or more advantageous to its long term plans.
The situation might have been different in the US. From my previous readings about the history of the iPhone, Apple first approached Verizon. One can surmise that Apple thought that Verizon was the most "advanced telecommunications" company, and/or that Verizon has a greater stranglehold of the most lucrative telecommunications market (the US Northeast, including NYC), at the time. When Verizon did not agree to the terms imposed by Apple (or by Steve Jobs), Apple decided to look for a partner that will allow them the control that was sought.
It turned out to be the telecommunications company that was later on bought by AT&T. And, the former telecommunications company (latter on AT&T) was wise enough to extract a long term deal from Apple. In a sense, AT&T got the better deal because Apple could not impose that AT&T can sell only the iPhone. That Apple cannot impose exclusivity -- i.e., iPhone will be the only one sold by a telephone company -- was true then, now or in the future.
Considering the aforementioned, why would Apple stick exclusively with AT&T, forever? Only if it is to Apple's advantage -- maximal profit; and/or, if exclusivity would ensure that Apple will retain its dominance in an increasingly competitive smart phone market.
In fact, Apple may consider the latter more critical in the long run, than short run maximal profit. If this is how Apple thinks -- and this should be more clear by next year or the year after when AT&T and Verizon will have compatible technologies -- I see no reason why Apple will not consider Verizon, as additional partner. If the rumor is true, it might even have already entered into exploratory talks with Verizon, if not the iPhone, some other mobile computing products.
What migth remain is that Apple will insist on complete control of its products rather than allow telecommunications companies to tamper with it. This might be the deal breaker when it comes with any future deals with companies, like Verizon. There is a reason to believe however that Apple may be more flexible. For example, in Japan, after much negotiation, they allowed some features to be introduced to adapt to local telecommunications customs. Will it allow more flexibility in China? This should be more clear, with the new products announced next week, or those coming out in the future.
My first gen iPhone contract is nearly up...... Apple builds beautiful products, but it doesn't rise above its core value if the service provider SUCKS.
So what's the deal with AT&T when your contract is up? Can't you transfer over to another carrier?
What Apple should have done with the Mac was reduce the price to not let Microsoft in. And in fact Steve Jobs has said that is what he would have done if he were still at Apple. However this time around he is at Apple, and the rumored iPhone price drop will I believe happen.
The free market only allows innovators a short period of monopoly on a new idea, their period of reward for being so smart. When new competitors finally get their sh*t together, you have to adapt. Look at the iPod, still on top after all this time. Remember when Apple dropped the iPod price right as the Zune was about to come out. Microsoft publicly admitted they were caught off-guard.
I wouldn't want to argue that metered service is inherently more expensive than flat-rate service. The truth is, flat rate services tend to mask the cost more successfully. I read somewhere recently that the average actual cost per minute of cell phone service is close to $3.00. Alá carte isn't always more expensive than all-you-can-eat. It depends.
He doesn't. He makes things up all the time. You think he would provide a link or preface his remarks with "I think"? No - he blurts out unsubstantiated facts all the time.
You never need to preface something with 'I think'. You obviously think that else you wouldn't say it.
But that's not my point. I'm in a class of people who don't want or need data. It would be nice if they could remove it without losing the rest of the iPhone model. There's nothing technical preventing it, you have an opinion that it would ruin the business model, and there's no evidence that that's the case.
If you don't want or need data at all, you don't need an iPhone. (If you want data and voice just when you're in range of a wi-fi hotspot, you get an iPod touch.)
Now Apple could make another phone for voice only users. But it wouldn't be an iPhone, and Apple wouldn't ask the carrier for almost $600 dollars for it. (Why is it not an iPhone? Because Jobs said at least ten times during the debut in Jan 2007 that iPhone is a phone, iPod, and Internet communicator.)
The only obstacle is that Apple is not interested in making just a voice phone, in the same way, that they are not interested in making modems or wired/cordless phones or DVD players. They don't care that millions of people are still buying such things; those are not things that will continue to have growth five years from now. Apple is not interested in getting every one of your consumer electronics dollars; if they are going to introduce something new, it has to be in a market that they project to be growing in the next decade. And to them, a voice-only phone is not it.
You never need to preface something with 'I think'. You obviously think that else you wouldn't say it.
"I think", in the context of a discussion board, is just a variant on "in my opinion" or "it seems to me." Ideally, it's used to distinguish statements of objective fact from those of subjective belief, although in practice it's often used to mean something like "I'm not sure about this but I'm saying it anyway until someone calls me on it" or "I'm kind of thinking out loud here, bear with me."
"I think the Pre is poorly made" is different from "The Pre is poorly made", in that the latter implies actual knowledge of design details while the former suggests a passing impression.
"I think", in the context of a discussion board, is just a variant on "in my opinion" or "it seems to me." Ideally, it's used to distinguish statements of objective fact from those of subjective belief, although in practice it's often used to mean something like "I'm not sure about this but I'm saying it anyway until someone calls me on it" or "I'm kind of thinking out loud here, bear with me."
"I think the Pre is poorly made" is different from "The Pre is poorly made", in that the latter implies actual knowledge of design details while the former suggests a passing impression.
I understand what you are saying but to use your example, "The Pre is poorly made" is a statement of opinion unless the context was "The Pre is poorly made - I flipped the phone open and it all fell apart into a handful of pieces ..." It is simply my opinion if I said, "The Pre is poorly made because I hate Palm / Sprint / a real keyboard" etc. but did not provide the facts to support it.
Coincidence? Dunno, but it's a fact there out.
I understand what you are saying but to use your example, "The Pre is poorly made" is a statement of opinion unless the context was "The Pre is poorly made - I flipped the phone open and it all fell apart into a handful of pieces ..." It is simply my opinion if I said, "The Pre is poorly made because I hate Palm / Sprint / a real keyboard" etc. but did not provide the facts to support it.
True enough, but in the semi-conversational mode of internet, which is not exactly chatting but not remotely formal correspondence, I think that "I think" acts as a kind of rhetorical throat clearing that signifies somewhere between opinion and random thought.
There's just something about flat statements of fact-- "The Pre is poorly made", or "Microsoft is a criminal enterprise", or "Teckstud is wanted for murder" that come off aggressive in a way that appending "I think" somewhat mitigates.
True enough, but in the semi-conversational mode of internet, which is not exactly chatting but not remotely formal correspondence, I think that "I think" acts as a kind of rhetorical throat clearing that signifies somewhere between opinion and random thought.
There's just something about flat statements of fact-- "The Pre is poorly made", or "Microsoft is a criminal enterprise", or "Teckstud is wanted for murder" that come off aggressive in a way that appending "I think" somewhat mitigates.
I can be 1000% certain the next iPhone will not be a slider phone. Apple is more into solid designs with no moving parts or removable hatches.
The obvious disadvantage to a slider phone is that you have to produce and inventory a whole different set of parts for international variants on the phone. The iPhone is very easy to "internationalize" since the keyboard is all software. They simply need different firmwares.
Every individual is looking for a solution to their own needs. Apple and AT&T present you with a particular value proposition. If it falls short (or exceeds) your particular needs, feel free to move on. Those who pontificate that Apple and AT&T need to adjust their business model to suit them are lunatics. Get a different phone if you don't like what's being offered. They're in the business of selling as many phones / contracts as possible.
That's a pretty hard line to take. It's like there's this take it or leave it position and the deal that is currently offered for the 3G is all that is and will ever be. The iPhone has been out for two years now. If they want to sell anymore in the US while still stuck to AT&T (maybe) they'll have to address what customers want, which two potential customers just illustrated.
Apple's got the fanboys and tech toy lovers who will bend their wants and wallets to get the most awesome gadgets. Now they may be going after ubiquity by taking over the smartphone/handheld computer market in much the same way that Windows dominated the desktop market early on, by getting everybody they can to jump on board and becoming the de facto standard. Their computers may be oriented toward the well off, but the iphone doesn't have to be.
To become ubiquitous they have to meet the customers halfway, and a lot of that has to do with pricing, and the model that they've been using may very well change with the introduction of these new iphones. I for one hope it does.
I wonder how you know that. I really wonder.
I thought that the whole AT&T iphone model was based on a low upfront price, tied to a 2 yr data plan. With AT&T kicking back some of the data plan money to Apple Inc.
9
You never need to preface something with 'I think'. You obviously think that else you wouldn't say it.
It is often a good practice to declare a personal opinion vs. repeating a known fact. Language isn't as simplistic as your statements would suggest. Some people have a hard time presenting their opinion as their opinion, and a lot of people make the mistake on occasion. Sometimes, whether by intention or by mistake, they word their opinion or conjecture as if what they said is a known fact. One particularly egregious case a month ago was when someone said flatly that Dell or HP was behind Psystar. We don't need that stuff becoming hearsay, it's doesn't look good.
Of course their are several things contributing to AT&T's bottom line, its a huge business. Their wireless business is the bulk of their revenue. The important part that applies to this discussion is that AT&T states that iPhone subsidies cut into their profits.
Providing wireless communications is their entire business model as is the business model for every mobile carrier. All of the mobile carriers spend billions on providing data services. The point of investing in infrastructure is to make profit from it. The flaw isn't in their business model its in your understanding of the type of service they provide.
With the razor thin profit margin's all phone carrier's make. The last island of full and continuing profit is data service's. So if AT&T doesn't make a fat solid profit with the iphone and other smart phone's, then how can they continue their incredible cash outlay building the so called 4g network. With out the iphone plowing the way AT&T would be in a world of hurt right now.
Remember all the unlit fiber optic cable the late 90's ??
Just saying
9
It is often a good practice to declare a personal opinion vs. repeating a known fact. Language isn't as simplistic as your statements would suggest. Some people have a hard time presenting their opinion as their opinion, and a lot of people make the mistake on occasion. Sometimes, whether by intention or by mistake, they word their opinion or conjecture as if what they said is a known fact. One particularly egregious case a month ago was when someone said flatly that Dell or HP was behind Psystar. We don't need that stuff becoming hearsay, it's doesn't look good.
Yes Jeff pre-facing with > I think or maybe <is a very respectful way of talking. And with the crazy facts posted here at AI, its a must.
9
The Pre is a worthy competitor, according to most reviews, but might be a couple of years too late. OTOH, some of the future Android phones could really compete, and Apple needs to establish dominance early, so Developers mainly develop for their OS and not others...
To pre-empt competition. Apple right now does not have any competition, but it needs to strengthen its position, since the competition is coming.
The Pre is a worthy competitor, according to most reviews, but might be a couple of years too late. OTOH, some of the future Android phones could really compete, and Apple needs to establish dominance early, so Developers mainly develop for their OS and not others...
The pre will sell very very well and will be around for a long time. For what it is and what it can do, I think the pre is not so bad.
For the people who don't like the iphone and don't like the glass keyboard the Pre should fill that hole.
IF the Pre's tiny keyboard gains wide acceptance.
IF the Pre short battery life and constant battery replacing is also widely acceptable. Of note for $70 bucks, the Pre has the coolest phone charger ever.
IF the pre can get away with their itunes link up for long. And their touch screen may also break some of apple's patent's. Go here. http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/...-legal-threat/
IF these above things happen and Palm's addresse's Pre's other shortfalls then the pre will sell million's. And have it rightful place besides the iphone.
Developers already know about Web os. And they will write a bunch of cool apps for the Pre. Not 1/4 as large as the iphone's app store but as large as the other players are offering or will offer. It will take 2 years to build even a small strong app store.
Remember folks this is PALM with scores of old ex-apple people on board now. And just because all the pundits and their ilk say no developers will write for the Pre does not make it so.
Just saying.
peace