At 10 Jan 2007 06:41:31 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's
> coverage is consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region
> of the country.

Where Cingular was one of the incumbent 800MHz carriers, like in the NE,
SE and Midwest they hold their own quite well. I was never disappointed
with Cingular coverage in the 10 years I used them (on TDMA, with the old
ATTWS as a roaming partner) throughout t
e Midwest and Northeast.

> Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units
> worldwide, so they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck
> with Cingular.

I think the corporate mindset had a lot to do with it as well- I can't
see Verizon rolling over to Apple's design demands and requirements to
the extent Cingular (or Sprint) would be willing to (can you picture the
ads? "iPhone- with VCast!" ;-)

> Also, Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want
> to give up that revenue stream to Apple.

Agreed, but I think they'd have made an exception for the iPhone- I
suspect there were bigger points they were unwilling to conceed.


> The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially
> given the lack of 3G capability in the first model.

Agree. IMHO, Apple is very form (including ease-of-use) over substance-
iPods aren't the best spec'd MP3 players out there, but they've got the
style and ergonomics down better than everyone else. I suspect the same
will be true of the iPhone- browsing the web on a good capable browser,
even at EDGE speed, on a large, gorgeous screen, will be a more
satisfying experience than EVDO on, say, a a WinMo 5 device, even though
EVDO downloads that "Sorry, your browser doesn't support Java or Frames"
error message so much faster than EDGE can! ;-)

> They should sell a version of it with no phone service, but with an
> ExpressCard slot so users can insert a 3G card from whatever
> carrier they want.

That won't happen unless the Express Card could be made white, embossed
with a mirror-like shine and not extend from the device. Hell, they
won't put flash memory slots on an iPod Nano, you think they'll let
people stick ugly grey cards with flashing LEDs in unapproved colors that
hang out of their pretty phone? ;-)


> The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost
> always the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy
> one for $500 or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then
> Apple will have a winner.

I suspect the marketing will parallel the iPod- keep them expensive and
90% perfect for the first generation, to make it an object of desire.
Then improve them for 2nd gen; add the obvious missing features (like
3G), offer more colors, and reduce the depth and width 10% to ensure
you'll need new docking accessories and cases for the upgraded model! ;-)

Like the iPod, it'll be at hit right away even overpriced, then it will
be a HUGE hit at the price drop, when the knockoffs show up, and everyone
copies the full screen design with far clunkier UIs, then eventually
it'll be ubiquitous when Apple releases the stripped-down iPhone Nano,
with smaller screen, and the much less expensive, displayless
iPhone Shuffle, that can only dial people at random from your phone
book at the touch of a button... ;-)

Then, maybe 3 or 4 years from now, Motorola will have a hit with a
groundbreaking design: a phone with a physical, tactile keypad made of
little rubber buttons laid out in a 3x4 grid that they'll call the
KYPD...



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com