Nothing wrong with RIM introducing this product. Yes, quality could have been better, but RIM is still beating Apple hands down in penetration of smartphones, and to the extent they can pressure apple on their turf it is a good thing for them. The new Bold and Curve are awesome products that will take customers away from Apple, and for those who MUST have a touch screen, well, you've got a work in progress that will improve over time.
Nothing wrong with RIM introducing this product. Yes, quality could have been better, but RIM is still beating Apple hands down in penetration of smartphones, and to the extent they can pressure apple on their turf it is a good thing for them. The new Bold and Curve are awesome products that will take customers away from Apple, and for those who MUST have a touch screen, well, you've got a work in progress that will improve over time.
Yawn even with all those phones and Apple with one phone is outselling them, we heard before the storm launched that it would finish Apple, yet the storm hardly made a breeze talk less of a storm.
That sounds absolutely pointless, and counter-productive.
I presume Apple have the patent on capacitive touch clicking by finding the centre of an area of pressure (e.g., a finger tip shaped area) as the likely point of contact? I assume they also have a patent on the keyboard design that works out likely words from your typing pattern rather than the exact place you typed. Both of these will make RIM's job much harder to come up with an alternative.
I haven't done more than skim through the patents, they're too long for a quick read, with all the drawings and diagrams, so I don't know exactly what it is that Apple patented about this.
But one thing I have read somewhere, is that the screen actually reads up to about 15 touch sites the same time. I'm not sure what the software does with that in the broader sense, as with specific gestures. In other words, will it allow four finger gestures now?
But it does use it in detecting a key. So if you hit 60% of a key, the space between, and 20% of the next key, at the same time, it will assume that you meant the key with the 60% and read only that one. With my Treo, if I hit more than one of those tiny keys at once, it would read both. A physical key doesn't know or care. It's why the QUERTY keyboard was developed way back in the first place?to slow typists down so that wouldn't happen.
Nokia and Sony Ericsson both got out of CDMA because it was unprofitable. Qualcomm control CDMA in the US and everything is done on their terms. They're the ones making all of the profits. The R&D cost simply isn't worth it for a lot of companies.
Qualcomm's flavour of CDMA is an evolutionary dead-end. There's no logical reason for Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon.
Nokia and Sony Ericsson both got out of CDMA because it was unprofitable. Qualcomm control CDMA in the US and everything is done on their terms. They're the ones making all of the profits. The R&D cost simply isn't worth it for a lot of companies.
Qualcomm's flavour of CDMA is an evolutionary dead-end. There's no logical reason for Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon.
Reading this and some reviews of the new Nokia 5800 (which some people at work now have) I was reminded of some quotes from the incumbent handset manufacturers around the time of the original iPhone announcement.
They were along the lines of "we're not worried, we've been doing this for 15 years and trust us, it is hard to make a good handset. Apple are starting from scratch. It will take them 3 versions to even have something workable". Perhaps is was Motorolla?
Anyway, point is, obviously they were wrong, the iPhone is a huge success and the user experience eclipses any other mobile device (including all the previous iPods) I've ever used.
But I was also reminded of something Apple said just recently - "The user experience of handheld devices is much more about the software now than the hardware". Being successful with mobile devices doesn't require 15 years of handset manufacturing experience, but it will benefit of 15 years commitment to software design focused on the user experience, not feature lists. Oh, and paring that with top-notch hardware and industrial design that you also control completely. no concessions to legacy...
I played with my co-workers N5800 for about 3 minutes before I had to excuse myself with a "that's great, really..." and walk away feeling so sorry for him. He'd bought it outright for £200 and it is very ordinary. The symbian-based OS is so much legacy stuff dressed up as new. The touch screen, well, isn't one. It requires a stylus, not fingers. Oh dear.
Anyway, I am sure the big guys will continue to refine their offerings closer and closer to the iPhone designs and lessons learnt (good, and a few bad). After a debut that really can't be called anything other than spectacular, the onus is on Apple to continue to lead the space.
And my wish-list for the iPhone 2.0 (3G was 1.5), from a obviously happy first-gen iPhone user?:
- Better still camera quality, whatever that takes
- Front-firing iSight for 3G video calls. Apple can totally own mobile video calls if they play this right. Then they can release an Apple TV iSight peripheral and own wired/home video conferencing too...
- A physical design that helps me know the top from the bottom of my iPhone in my pocket .
- Enable all available Bluetooth features like stereo audio and file xfer.
- More standards-based syncing with Google contacts, calendar etc.
- A hundred little incremental user interface improvement that can come from looking hard at what people do with their iphone and making is even more effortless. "Think Simpler"
Reading this and some reviews of the new Nokia 5800 (which some people at work now have) I was reminded of some quotes from the incumbent handset manufacturers around the time of the original iPhone announcement.
They were along the lines of "we're not worried, we've been doing this for 15 years and trust us, it is hard to make a good handset. Apple are starting from scratch. It will take them 3 versions to even have something workable". Perhaps is was Motorolla?
Anyway, point is, obviously they were wrong, the iPhone is a huge success and the user experience eclipses any other mobile device (including all the previous iPods) I've ever used.
But I was also reminded of something Apple said just recently - "The user experience of handheld devices is much more about the software now than the hardware". Being successful with mobile devices doesn't require 15 years of handset manufacturing experience, but it will benefit of 15 years commitment to software design focused on the user experience, not feature lists. Oh, and paring that with top-notch hardware and industrial design that you also control completely. no concessions to legacy...
I played with my co-workers N5800 for about 3 minutes before I had to excuse myself with a "that's great, really..." and walk away feeling so sorry for him. He'd bought it outright for £200 and it is very ordinary. The symbian-based OS is so much legacy stuff dressed up as new. The touch screen, well, isn't one. It requires a stylus, not fingers. Oh dear.
Anyway, I am sure the big guys will continue to refine their offerings closer and closer to the iPhone designs and lessons learnt (good, and a few bad). After a debut that really can't be called anything other than spectacular, the onus is on Apple to continue to lead the space.
And my wish-list for the iPhone 2.0 (3G was 1.5), from a obviously happy first-gen iPhone user?:
- Better still camera quality, whatever that takes
- Front-firing iSight for 3G video calls. Apple can totally own mobile video calls if they play this right. Then they can release an Apple TV iSight peripheral and own wired/home video conferencing too...
- A physical design that helps me know the top from the bottom of my iPhone in my pocket .
- Enable all available Bluetooth features like stereo audio and file xfer.
- More standards-based syncing with Google contacts, calendar etc.
- A hundred little incremental user interface improvement that can come from looking hard at what people do with their iphone and making is even more effortless. "Think Simpler"
I agree with most of all that.
I do have to say though, that finding which way is up is easy. When I have it in a pocket, rather than on my waist, I just feel for the button, or the earphone. Both are obvious when a finger quickly moves over them. You can also feel for the side buttons, the camera, the connector, etc. It only takes a second.
Nokia and Sony Ericsson both got out of CDMA because it was unprofitable. Qualcomm control CDMA in the US and everything is done on their terms. They're the ones making all of the profits. The R&D cost simply isn't worth it for a lot of companies.
Qualcomm's flavour of CDMA is an evolutionary dead-end. There's no logical reason for Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon.
First, Nokia has come back and is producing CDMA devices. Ericsson, well the phones were junk, and sales drove them out.
It is silly to think of CDMA that way, its an evolution of GSM/TDMA. It provides more capacity, clarity and security, which is essential for service providers. If it was not logical to bring it to Verizon, they would not have offered it to them, which they did. Almost all of verizons PDA devices also now offer GSM as well, mainly because they are a partnership company owned by Verizon Comm, and Vodaphone, the largest carrier in the world. Apple is not ignorant enough to ignore the massive opportunity, they were simply unable to convince verizon its worth the required terms. Time will tell, I have used a BBS and iphone and others and honestly most of the stuff I have read on here is pure fanboy hype. Both of the devices are pretty sweet, it's simply a mater of preference, and we are only comparing a little over a month of existence for the BBS right now. I ended up liking the Samsung Omnia better than both of them.
Apple is not ignorant enough to ignore the massive opportunity, they were simply unable to convince verizon its worth the required terms.
You are over stating the massive opportunity of Verizon. 80 million in the US vs billions of GSM users around the world. Apple doesn't need Verizon.
Quote:
Time will tell, I have used a BBS and iphone and others and honestly most of the stuff I have read on here is pure fanboy hype. Both of the devices are pretty sweet, it's simply a mater of preference, and we are only comparing a little over a month of existence for the BBS right now.
Ah, their goes the fanboy accusations.
You need to search around the net. Their have been lots of bad reviews of the Storm from sites that have nothing to do with Apple.
You are over stating the massive opportunity of Verizon. 80 million in the US vs billions of GSM users around the world. Apple doesn't need Verizon.
Apple doesn't need Verizon? What does that prove? 80 million subscribers. The work to put some new chips into the iPhone is well understood, it's been done for hundreds of other phones in the past 5 years. Apple has demonstrated with ATT the demand in the USA for the iPhone, and it's over 10% of ATT's subscribers. If Apple could sell 8 million iPhones, for a gross of over two billion dollars, you don't think that would be profitable?
First, Nokia has come back and is producing CDMA devices. Ericsson, well the phones were junk, and sales drove them out.
It is silly to think of CDMA that way, its an evolution of GSM/TDMA. It provides more capacity, clarity and security, which is essential for service providers. If it was not logical to bring it to Verizon, they would not have offered it to them, which they did. Almost all of verizons PDA devices also now offer GSM as well, mainly because they are a partnership company owned by Verizon Comm, and Vodaphone, the largest carrier in the world. Apple is not ignorant enough to ignore the massive opportunity, they were simply unable to convince verizon its worth the required terms. Time will tell, I have used a BBS and iphone and others and honestly most of the stuff I have read on here is pure fanboy hype. Both of the devices are pretty sweet, it's simply a mater of preference, and we are only comparing a little over a month of existence for the BBS right now. I ended up liking the Samsung Omnia better than both of them.
I'm sure there must be more reviews (other than articles where the writer hasn't actually used it at all, or for more than a few minutes), but I don't have them bookmarked.
You are over stating the massive opportunity of Verizon. 80 million in the US vs billions of GSM users around the world. Apple doesn't need Verizon.
80 million users in a first world country (with higher 3G penetration than the 5 largest european countries) ---- is a lot different than 700-800 million poor cell phone users in the third world.
The US market still represents about 1/2 of the world's iphones sold.
I'm sure there must be more reviews (other than articles where the writer hasn't actually used it at all, or for more than a few minutes), but I don't have them bookmarked.
I played with my co-workers N5800 for about 3 minutes before I had to excuse myself with a "that's great, really..." and walk away feeling so sorry for him. He'd bought it outright for £200 and it is very ordinary. The symbian-based OS is so much legacy stuff dressed up as new. The touch screen, well, isn't one. It requires a stylus, not fingers. Oh dear.
Really? We've got one at work and I've never had to use the stylus. What exactly did you need the stylus for?
I think Nokia has actually been very clever with the 5800. They've looked at what Apple do best (shiny techno-lust gadgets) and looked at what they do best (mass market phones). Instead of directly copying the iPhone (*cough* Omnia *cough*), they've taken the form-factor and delivered something different - a very cheap touchscreen smartphone. It's not as good as the iPhone but it's decent for the price - especially in the weakening global economy. The iPhone is still a minimum of £350 to buy outright from 02 and it's still locked to their network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwk984
First, Nokia has come back and is producing CDMA devices. Ericsson, well the phones were junk, and sales drove them out.
No, Nokia are not producing CDMA devices. They're re-badging Sanyo phones. Nokia got rid of its CDMA R&D facilities a couple of years back.
Quote:
It is silly to think of CDMA that way, its an evolution of GSM/TDMA. It provides more capacity, clarity and security, which is essential for service providers.
I was very precise with my language. CDMA is not an evolutionary dead-end. Qualcomm CDMA is a dead-end. The world and its dog is moving to the GSM Association's LTE standard. The wireless standards that Verizon built its network on, IS-95/EV-DO, were technically very good. However, they were effectively controlled by one company and this starved the market of competition. Verizon CDMA devices were always much more expensive to develop, manufacturer and buy because of this lack of competition.
Yes Apple doesn't "need" Verizon. I agree the iPhone on Verizon would add to Apple's profits, but Apple does not need the iPhone on Verizon to be highly profitable. Their is a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Apple doesn't need Verizon? What does that prove? 80 million subscribers. The work to put some new chips into the iPhone is well understood, it's been done for hundreds of other phones in the past 5 years. Apple has demonstrated with ATT the demand in the USA for the iPhone, and it's over 10% of ATT's subscribers. If Apple could sell 8 million iPhones, for a gross of over two billion dollars, you don't think that would be profitable?
I agree Verizon is a highly profitable business. But I do not agree that Verizon is more desirable than the majority of the worlds market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
80 million users in a first world country (with higher 3G penetration than the 5 largest european countries) ---- is a lot different than 700-800 million poor cell phone users in the third world.
The US market still represents about 1/2 of the world's iphones sold.
Yes Apple doesn't "need" Verizon. I agree the iPhone on Verizon would add to Apple's profits, but Apple does not need the iPhone on Verizon to be highly profitable. Their is a difference.
What it would do is add to the hype.
If it did arrive on Verizon, which is very possible sometime 2010, after LTE arrives, and somehow became their most popular phone, which is very possible, what would that tell other manufacturers?
I understand that in other places around the world, where Apple's brand is not quite as strong, while the phone has been pretty popular, it's not as strong as it is here. But covering Verizon would put a crimp in everyone else's plans and force them to rethink their strategies.
why doesn't apple buy its own network, or MVNO they could charge for the phone and make a everything package like sprint for $50/ month and kick butt
verizon would have to make major concessions to apple that ATT has, verizon with its vcast makes mucho why let apple dilute this.
We've discussed this many times, as yu know. Why would Apple want to become a phone company, with all the responsibilities of having to deal with customers over network problems, billing, etc? Too much for me to even think about.
Why not a MVNO? Good question. Possibly they feel as though they would still be blamed for network problems, billing problems and the like if their name was on the network, even though it really wasn't theirs.
Comments
Nothing wrong with RIM introducing this product. Yes, quality could have been better, but RIM is still beating Apple hands down in penetration of smartphones, and to the extent they can pressure apple on their turf it is a good thing for them. The new Bold and Curve are awesome products that will take customers away from Apple, and for those who MUST have a touch screen, well, you've got a work in progress that will improve over time.
Yawn even with all those phones and Apple with one phone is outselling them, we heard before the storm launched that it would finish Apple, yet the storm hardly made a breeze talk less of a storm.
That sounds absolutely pointless, and counter-productive.
I presume Apple have the patent on capacitive touch clicking by finding the centre of an area of pressure (e.g., a finger tip shaped area) as the likely point of contact? I assume they also have a patent on the keyboard design that works out likely words from your typing pattern rather than the exact place you typed. Both of these will make RIM's job much harder to come up with an alternative.
I haven't done more than skim through the patents, they're too long for a quick read, with all the drawings and diagrams, so I don't know exactly what it is that Apple patented about this.
But one thing I have read somewhere, is that the screen actually reads up to about 15 touch sites the same time. I'm not sure what the software does with that in the broader sense, as with specific gestures. In other words, will it allow four finger gestures now?
But it does use it in detecting a key. So if you hit 60% of a key, the space between, and 20% of the next key, at the same time, it will assume that you meant the key with the 60% and read only that one. With my Treo, if I hit more than one of those tiny keys at once, it would read both. A physical key doesn't know or care. It's why the QUERTY keyboard was developed way back in the first place?to slow typists down so that wouldn't happen.
Nokia and Sony Ericsson both got out of CDMA because it was unprofitable. Qualcomm control CDMA in the US and everything is done on their terms. They're the ones making all of the profits. The R&D cost simply isn't worth it for a lot of companies.
Qualcomm's flavour of CDMA is an evolutionary dead-end. There's no logical reason for Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon.
Broadcom too.
Nokia and Sony Ericsson both got out of CDMA because it was unprofitable. Qualcomm control CDMA in the US and everything is done on their terms. They're the ones making all of the profits. The R&D cost simply isn't worth it for a lot of companies.
Qualcomm's flavour of CDMA is an evolutionary dead-end. There's no logical reason for Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon.
What about 3/4 of a billion dollars in profit?
They were along the lines of "we're not worried, we've been doing this for 15 years and trust us, it is hard to make a good handset. Apple are starting from scratch. It will take them 3 versions to even have something workable". Perhaps is was Motorolla?
Anyway, point is, obviously they were wrong, the iPhone is a huge success and the user experience eclipses any other mobile device (including all the previous iPods) I've ever used.
But I was also reminded of something Apple said just recently - "The user experience of handheld devices is much more about the software now than the hardware". Being successful with mobile devices doesn't require 15 years of handset manufacturing experience, but it will benefit of 15 years commitment to software design focused on the user experience, not feature lists. Oh, and paring that with top-notch hardware and industrial design that you also control completely. no concessions to legacy...
I played with my co-workers N5800 for about 3 minutes before I had to excuse myself with a "that's great, really..." and walk away feeling so sorry for him. He'd bought it outright for £200 and it is very ordinary. The symbian-based OS is so much legacy stuff dressed up as new. The touch screen, well, isn't one. It requires a stylus, not fingers. Oh dear.
Anyway, I am sure the big guys will continue to refine their offerings closer and closer to the iPhone designs and lessons learnt (good, and a few bad). After a debut that really can't be called anything other than spectacular, the onus is on Apple to continue to lead the space.
And my wish-list for the iPhone 2.0 (3G was 1.5), from a obviously happy first-gen iPhone user?:
- Better still camera quality, whatever that takes
- Front-firing iSight for 3G video calls. Apple can totally own mobile video calls if they play this right. Then they can release an Apple TV iSight peripheral and own wired/home video conferencing too...
- A physical design that helps me know the top from the bottom of my iPhone in my pocket .
- Enable all available Bluetooth features like stereo audio and file xfer.
- More standards-based syncing with Google contacts, calendar etc.
- A hundred little incremental user interface improvement that can come from looking hard at what people do with their iphone and making is even more effortless. "Think Simpler"
Reading this and some reviews of the new Nokia 5800 (which some people at work now have) I was reminded of some quotes from the incumbent handset manufacturers around the time of the original iPhone announcement.
They were along the lines of "we're not worried, we've been doing this for 15 years and trust us, it is hard to make a good handset. Apple are starting from scratch. It will take them 3 versions to even have something workable". Perhaps is was Motorolla?
Anyway, point is, obviously they were wrong, the iPhone is a huge success and the user experience eclipses any other mobile device (including all the previous iPods) I've ever used.
But I was also reminded of something Apple said just recently - "The user experience of handheld devices is much more about the software now than the hardware". Being successful with mobile devices doesn't require 15 years of handset manufacturing experience, but it will benefit of 15 years commitment to software design focused on the user experience, not feature lists. Oh, and paring that with top-notch hardware and industrial design that you also control completely. no concessions to legacy...
I played with my co-workers N5800 for about 3 minutes before I had to excuse myself with a "that's great, really..." and walk away feeling so sorry for him. He'd bought it outright for £200 and it is very ordinary. The symbian-based OS is so much legacy stuff dressed up as new. The touch screen, well, isn't one. It requires a stylus, not fingers. Oh dear.
Anyway, I am sure the big guys will continue to refine their offerings closer and closer to the iPhone designs and lessons learnt (good, and a few bad). After a debut that really can't be called anything other than spectacular, the onus is on Apple to continue to lead the space.
And my wish-list for the iPhone 2.0 (3G was 1.5), from a obviously happy first-gen iPhone user?:
- Better still camera quality, whatever that takes
- Front-firing iSight for 3G video calls. Apple can totally own mobile video calls if they play this right. Then they can release an Apple TV iSight peripheral and own wired/home video conferencing too...
- A physical design that helps me know the top from the bottom of my iPhone in my pocket .
- Enable all available Bluetooth features like stereo audio and file xfer.
- More standards-based syncing with Google contacts, calendar etc.
- A hundred little incremental user interface improvement that can come from looking hard at what people do with their iphone and making is even more effortless. "Think Simpler"
I agree with most of all that.
I do have to say though, that finding which way is up is easy. When I have it in a pocket, rather than on my waist, I just feel for the button, or the earphone. Both are obvious when a finger quickly moves over them. You can also feel for the side buttons, the camera, the connector, etc. It only takes a second.
storm has tedious keyboard, poor OS, NO WIFI, and when someone says "single digit return" it could be just for a day , that day or an hour,
here's how you tell penetration----how many are surfing the web?
funny they don't tell us that do they hmmmmmm
how many app downloads....hmmmm no info for that
corp app development......hmmmmm no info for that either
iphone is the standard.....hmmmmmm they don't want to discuss that
i've never seen one......none of my geek phone guys/ girls have one....they dismiss it
let's see......lets market a high end phone....without highend stuff
Nokia and Sony Ericsson both got out of CDMA because it was unprofitable. Qualcomm control CDMA in the US and everything is done on their terms. They're the ones making all of the profits. The R&D cost simply isn't worth it for a lot of companies.
Qualcomm's flavour of CDMA is an evolutionary dead-end. There's no logical reason for Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon.
First, Nokia has come back and is producing CDMA devices. Ericsson, well the phones were junk, and sales drove them out.
It is silly to think of CDMA that way, its an evolution of GSM/TDMA. It provides more capacity, clarity and security, which is essential for service providers. If it was not logical to bring it to Verizon, they would not have offered it to them, which they did. Almost all of verizons PDA devices also now offer GSM as well, mainly because they are a partnership company owned by Verizon Comm, and Vodaphone, the largest carrier in the world. Apple is not ignorant enough to ignore the massive opportunity, they were simply unable to convince verizon its worth the required terms. Time will tell, I have used a BBS and iphone and others and honestly most of the stuff I have read on here is pure fanboy hype. Both of the devices are pretty sweet, it's simply a mater of preference, and we are only comparing a little over a month of existence for the BBS right now. I ended up liking the Samsung Omnia better than both of them.
Apple is not ignorant enough to ignore the massive opportunity, they were simply unable to convince verizon its worth the required terms.
You are over stating the massive opportunity of Verizon. 80 million in the US vs billions of GSM users around the world. Apple doesn't need Verizon.
Time will tell, I have used a BBS and iphone and others and honestly most of the stuff I have read on here is pure fanboy hype. Both of the devices are pretty sweet, it's simply a mater of preference, and we are only comparing a little over a month of existence for the BBS right now.
Ah, their goes the fanboy accusations.
You need to search around the net. Their have been lots of bad reviews of the Storm from sites that have nothing to do with Apple.
You are over stating the massive opportunity of Verizon. 80 million in the US vs billions of GSM users around the world. Apple doesn't need Verizon.
Apple doesn't need Verizon? What does that prove? 80 million subscribers. The work to put some new chips into the iPhone is well understood, it's been done for hundreds of other phones in the past 5 years. Apple has demonstrated with ATT the demand in the USA for the iPhone, and it's over 10% of ATT's subscribers. If Apple could sell 8 million iPhones, for a gross of over two billion dollars, you don't think that would be profitable?
First, Nokia has come back and is producing CDMA devices. Ericsson, well the phones were junk, and sales drove them out.
It is silly to think of CDMA that way, its an evolution of GSM/TDMA. It provides more capacity, clarity and security, which is essential for service providers. If it was not logical to bring it to Verizon, they would not have offered it to them, which they did. Almost all of verizons PDA devices also now offer GSM as well, mainly because they are a partnership company owned by Verizon Comm, and Vodaphone, the largest carrier in the world. Apple is not ignorant enough to ignore the massive opportunity, they were simply unable to convince verizon its worth the required terms. Time will tell, I have used a BBS and iphone and others and honestly most of the stuff I have read on here is pure fanboy hype. Both of the devices are pretty sweet, it's simply a mater of preference, and we are only comparing a little over a month of existence for the BBS right now. I ended up liking the Samsung Omnia better than both of them.
Some reviews of the Storm:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/15421...ppointing.html
http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/19/b...-storm-review/
http://gizmodo.com/5093715/blackberr...-perfect-storm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...3591085.column
http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...860717,00.html
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=212101426
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-...m-Lacks-Punch/
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/26909
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1093...m-is-a-washout
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/te...ogue.html?_r=2
I'm sure there must be more reviews (other than articles where the writer hasn't actually used it at all, or for more than a few minutes), but I don't have them bookmarked.
You are over stating the massive opportunity of Verizon. 80 million in the US vs billions of GSM users around the world. Apple doesn't need Verizon.
80 million users in a first world country (with higher 3G penetration than the 5 largest european countries) ---- is a lot different than 700-800 million poor cell phone users in the third world.
The US market still represents about 1/2 of the world's iphones sold.
Some reviews of the Storm:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/15421...ppointing.html
http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/19/b...-storm-review/
http://gizmodo.com/5093715/blackberr...-perfect-storm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...3591085.column
http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...860717,00.html
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=212101426
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-...m-Lacks-Punch/
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/26909
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1093...m-is-a-washout
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/te...ogue.html?_r=2
I'm sure there must be more reviews (other than articles where the writer hasn't actually used it at all, or for more than a few minutes), but I don't have them bookmarked.
You don't know all those are Apple fanboys?
I played with my co-workers N5800 for about 3 minutes before I had to excuse myself with a "that's great, really..." and walk away feeling so sorry for him. He'd bought it outright for £200 and it is very ordinary. The symbian-based OS is so much legacy stuff dressed up as new. The touch screen, well, isn't one. It requires a stylus, not fingers. Oh dear.
Really? We've got one at work and I've never had to use the stylus. What exactly did you need the stylus for?
I think Nokia has actually been very clever with the 5800. They've looked at what Apple do best (shiny techno-lust gadgets) and looked at what they do best (mass market phones). Instead of directly copying the iPhone (*cough* Omnia *cough*), they've taken the form-factor and delivered something different - a very cheap touchscreen smartphone. It's not as good as the iPhone but it's decent for the price - especially in the weakening global economy. The iPhone is still a minimum of £350 to buy outright from 02 and it's still locked to their network.
First, Nokia has come back and is producing CDMA devices. Ericsson, well the phones were junk, and sales drove them out.
No, Nokia are not producing CDMA devices. They're re-badging Sanyo phones. Nokia got rid of its CDMA R&D facilities a couple of years back.
It is silly to think of CDMA that way, its an evolution of GSM/TDMA. It provides more capacity, clarity and security, which is essential for service providers.
I was very precise with my language. CDMA is not an evolutionary dead-end. Qualcomm CDMA is a dead-end. The world and its dog is moving to the GSM Association's LTE standard. The wireless standards that Verizon built its network on, IS-95/EV-DO, were technically very good. However, they were effectively controlled by one company and this starved the market of competition. Verizon CDMA devices were always much more expensive to develop, manufacturer and buy because of this lack of competition.
Apple doesn't need Verizon? What does that prove? 80 million subscribers. The work to put some new chips into the iPhone is well understood, it's been done for hundreds of other phones in the past 5 years. Apple has demonstrated with ATT the demand in the USA for the iPhone, and it's over 10% of ATT's subscribers. If Apple could sell 8 million iPhones, for a gross of over two billion dollars, you don't think that would be profitable?
80 million users in a first world country (with higher 3G penetration than the 5 largest european countries) ---- is a lot different than 700-800 million poor cell phone users in the third world.
The US market still represents about 1/2 of the world's iphones sold.
Yes Apple doesn't "need" Verizon. I agree the iPhone on Verizon would add to Apple's profits, but Apple does not need the iPhone on Verizon to be highly profitable. Their is a difference.
What it would do is add to the hype.
If it did arrive on Verizon, which is very possible sometime 2010, after LTE arrives, and somehow became their most popular phone, which is very possible, what would that tell other manufacturers?
I understand that in other places around the world, where Apple's brand is not quite as strong, while the phone has been pretty popular, it's not as strong as it is here. But covering Verizon would put a crimp in everyone else's plans and force them to rethink their strategies.
verizon would have to make major concessions to apple that ATT has, verizon with its vcast makes mucho why let apple dilute this.
why doesn't apple buy its own network, or MVNO they could charge for the phone and make a everything package like sprint for $50/ month and kick butt
verizon would have to make major concessions to apple that ATT has, verizon with its vcast makes mucho why let apple dilute this.
We've discussed this many times, as yu know. Why would Apple want to become a phone company, with all the responsibilities of having to deal with customers over network problems, billing, etc? Too much for me to even think about.
Why not a MVNO? Good question. Possibly they feel as though they would still be blamed for network problems, billing problems and the like if their name was on the network, even though it really wasn't theirs.
Selling phones is much simpler.