In article <ZDNZ0GV339255.7951273148@anonymous.poster>, Avery
<avery23455@hotmail.com> wrote:

Only looking at this side right now:

> Seven reasons to be wary:
>
> Gold-digging: Starting at $500, the iPhone is one pricey date.
> Analysts estimate that Apple's cost is about
> half of that $500, suggesting that the company is milking the early
> adopters.
I've yet to see any cost analysis that had a good idea what specific
components would be in it, let alone one that could be considered
close.
Anybody know of one?

> No prenup: Purchasing an iPhone will force you to sign a two-year contract
> with AT&T, which will provide voice and data service.
People keep harping on this, like they want a phone without any service
contract. Aren't you going to expect to use it for two years?

> And unlike just about
> every other phone out there, there is no discount on the purchase price for
> signing that two-year agreement.
Stupid criticism; the deal is specific to Cingular/AT&T. How can we
claim there is no discount, when they are pricing the whole thing as a
package in the first place?
You can't show anything about a supposed 'discount' until you know the
price without the contract! (or, you could say that EVERY purchase
comes with a huge discount -- but it's still the only price known.)

> Touchiness:
Valid; we'll have to wait to see how people like it.

> Lack of sociability: The iPhone won't run on AT&T's fastest data network,
Not on the fastest, but on a fast network. The fastest isn't also the
only one.

> making it painfully slow for Web browsing or sending and receiving photos,
Relatively slow; and it's not locked into that alone.

> unless you happen to be at a coffee shop with free WiFi. But the WiFi can't
> be used to connect to other iPhones,
Whoa -- don't know that yet. But why? What do you want to move or
exchange? Isn't Bluetooth much more likely to connect to other devices,
anyway? Are you sure you know all of what will be possible in the
wireless arena?

> unlike the Microsoft Zune,
This is silliness embodied. The Zune can do almost NOTHING with its
wireless, and has almost nothing to compare to. Who wants to send
anything for just three days?

> nor can it
> sync music with a desktop computer.
Whoa -- too early, dude. You don't know that.

> Unfriendliness: Apple won't let software developers write their own
I still think it's stupid to complain about not using third-party tools
when you haven't tried the built-in tools. This isn't a PDA in that
sense; it's supposed to be a finished product for which you won't
_want_ to add anything more. (Yet many just won't accept that thought.)

> programs for the iPhone, saying it wants to ensure tight security and ease
> of use. The phone's Safari browser can run applications developed for the
> Web, but that means having to connect first to the Internet, and that's
> slow with the iPhone unless it's within range of a WiFi network.
I don't think either of those are true; the third-party developer's
tools use Safari, but do we actually know it can't be stored
internally, and that it has to be online, and that it has to be built
as a Web tool? None of that is necessarily true, so I don't know why
people are assuming it.

> Questionable stamina:
Right: questionable. No criticism against, none for. We simply don't
know. Can't use it as a point against it, especially because if it
comes close, you'd be totally wrong!

> Weak eye: A phone this expensive should do better than a 2-megapixel
Maybe, but anyone who cares doesn't use those, anyway. Cameras in
phones are junky. Good arguments for banning them.