In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0709090938030.2342@pangtzu.pand a.com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> 50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
> became famous as a massive commercial failure.
>
> The Edsel was designed to fill a marketing niche, rather than a specific
> need or capability. So is the iPhone (in this case, the fanboys who have
> to have the latest toy).
Mischaracterization; the iPhone is Apple's attempt to do a combination
device better than others have done them. As such, it's evolutionary
and designed to fit existing markets.
The point is defeated entirely.

> The Edsel was an outstanding design with a badly flawed implementation.
> So is the iPhone (no 3G, low-resolution screen, no third-party apps or
> SDK, poor keyboard, locked, ...)
iPhone appears to be an outstanding design with an outstanding
implementation. It has the highest res of all phones, seems to have a
good keyboard, 3G isn't a specific need. That it is locked to just one
carrier is an economic issue, and means nothing at all to many users!

> The Edsel was more expensive than alternatives. So is the iPhone.
Wrong. Many of it's competitors are more expensive. Many are less. But
none do exactly what it does, so it's a silly condemnation.

> To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
> the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
> out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
> market.
That would be insanely stupid even if all of the rest of your argument
was right on target. Are you suggesting product failures are products
that, after a while, stop getting made or sold?

> This last may be a reason to buy an iPhone; you intend to sell it NIB some
> years down the line for big bucks. Be careful, though. People thought
> that Newtons had great investment potential too but they remain a
> dime-a-dozen on eBay.
Also stupid; Newtons are highly prized by collectors and others because
they were great products. See the difference? Commercial faiilure is
often different from product design failure.
It seems you have a particular problem accepting the idea that some
companies make different products. If that's all this is, then shut up
and find a hole someplace to die in.
If you have INTELLIGENT things to say about products, figure out those
things first. Development problems, design problems, and economic
problems are different things -- you can't just pick out any famous
failure from the past and claim it's the fate of a product that you
(and almost you alone) think is a bad one.

All you prove is that you are an idiot.