"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> writes:
>
> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM
> rather than the technically superior CDMA.
Technicalities are less important than business issues here.
Verizon would never resell a phone that doesn't have its UI mangled to
look just like all of Verizon's phones. And they'd force Apple to
cripple the BT and WiFi connectivity. By the time Verizon got done
mandating their changes, you wouldn't want the result.
The Time aricle (see the original post in this thread) quotes Jobs
saying this (in more diplomatic language.)
> T-Mobile uses GSM and has probably the best world coverage.
T-Mobile's problem is that there are two many areas in the U.S. where
their coverage is poor, by virtue of their late entry, and their 1900
MHz network. I.e., at my house, in a very urban part of Silicon Valley,
about one mile from Apple's campus, there is no T-Mobile coverage.
They've been fighting to put in a tower for about six years now
(Cingular started, and then when Cingular sold the 1900 MHz network to
T-Mobile, T-Mobile took over the fight...a friend of mine, whose house
backs up to where the tower would go, has been leading the successful
fight against the tower). I used to have no Cingular coverage, now I
have mediocre Cingular coverage, and no T-Mobile coverage. T-Mobile is
at least upfront about it, they check addresses and then if there is no
coverage they advise you against purchasing their service.
With Cingular GSM, you can get all the world coverage that T-Mobile
offers, though you may pay a bit more for international coverage on
other T-Mobile networks outside the U.S., than T-Mobile USA customers
pay (not sure of this actually).
> That's pretty much what what people said about the iPod. Too bad that
> was such a market failure. You'd think Apple would learn from their
> mistakes. :-)
I'd compare the iPhone more to the Newton. Cool technology, but enough
gotchas to limit its appeal. No 3G, only available on a poor network,
and less capability than PDA phones, though a much cooler design. But
not to worry, the first version of any product has always got some
design issues. In a couple of years there may be a CDMA version, and a
GSM version with 3G, as well as a way to load applications onto it.
In article <45a587e5$0$4789$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 10 Jan 2007 17:15:08 -0600 Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > T-Mobile uses GSM and has probably the best world coverage. Would have
> > been a much better choice than Cingular, and I'd have jumped on an
> > iPhone as soon as they became available if it came with T-Mobile service
>
> Cingular has what, 50 million customers vs. T-Mo's 20? Cingular also has
> a higher ARPU (roughly translating into a more affluent customer base
> able to support selling a $500-600 phone) and has a presence in more
> markets than T-Mo.
> In addition, the timing is just right for Cingular- the press buzz will
> make this a great flagship phone to coincide with the rebranding to AT&T-
> I suspect we'll see a lot of "a new phone for the new AT&T"-type
> advertising.
The fact that Apple already had worked with Cingular on a phone probably
was a factor, too--the Motorola ROKR. Apple was pleased with the
collaboration with Cingular on that. It was Motorola that screwed that
phone up, not Cingular.
In article <45a587ca$0$4876$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> 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.
Apple understands that people don't use specifications. People objects
and tools. The user experience is what satisfies the user. Most people
couldn't care less about the specs as long as the user experience is
good- it's just the geeks who look under the hood.
In article <45a587cd$0$4876$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 10 Jan 2007 15:07:11 +0000 karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> > You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews...
> >
>
> Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing
> to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but
> not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first.
>
But the Razr is a crap phone. Tons of user complaints.
In article <m2tzyye6xx.fsf@qqqq.invalid>, shamino@techie.com (David C.)
wrote:
>
> My employer doesn't allow you to take pictures on-site, but they don't
> have a problem with merely posessing a camera. So my RAZR doesn't get
> me in trouble.
In article <20070111111308807+1300@News.Individual.NET>,
Roger Johnstone <roger@roger.geek.nz.removethisbit> wrote:
> In <45a4fb1f$0$69039$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> That is exactly the same comment many people, including reviewers, made
> when the iPod first came out. "Very cool, too expensive." And the same
> thing will probably happen this time around: it's so cool that people
> will buy them at the high price, and Apple won't be able to keep up with
> the initial demand. In a couple of years the 3rd generation iPhone with
> 32GB of flash, WiMax, and a second camera pointing the correct way for
> video calling, will still cost U$600, but the iPhone Classic will be
> available for half that.
>
> A year later Microsoft will introduce the Zune Phone. No one will notice.
In article <reply_in_group-F5C4DE.17500210012007@news.supernews.com>,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <45a587e5$0$4789$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> > At 10 Jan 2007 17:15:08 -0600 Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > > T-Mobile uses GSM and has probably the best world coverage. Would have
> > > been a much better choice than Cingular, and I'd have jumped on an
> > > iPhone as soon as they became available if it came with T-Mobile service
> >
> > Cingular has what, 50 million customers vs. T-Mo's 20? Cingular also has
> > a higher ARPU (roughly translating into a more affluent customer base
> > able to support selling a $500-600 phone) and has a presence in more
> > markets than T-Mo.
> > In addition, the timing is just right for Cingular- the press buzz will
> > make this a great flagship phone to coincide with the rebranding to AT&T-
> > I suspect we'll see a lot of "a new phone for the new AT&T"-type
> > advertising.
>
> The fact that Apple already had worked with Cingular on a phone probably
> was a factor, too--the Motorola ROKR. Apple was pleased with the
> collaboration with Cingular on that. It was Motorola that screwed that
> phone up, not Cingular.
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <45a587ca$0$4876$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Apple understands that people don't use specifications. People objects
> and tools. The user experience is what satisfies the user. Most people
> couldn't care less about the specs as long as the user experience is
> good- it's just the geeks who look under the hood.
Speaking of looking under the hood... this is spec'd at 4Gb or 8Gb. Is
this flash memory or hard drive?
In article <12qb9h2ndjf23f7@corp.supernews.com>,
Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <45a587ca$0$4876$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Apple understands that people don't use specifications. People objects
> > and tools. The user experience is what satisfies the user. Most people
> > couldn't care less about the specs as long as the user experience is
> > good- it's just the geeks who look under the hood.
>
>
> Speaking of looking under the hood... this is spec'd at 4Gb or 8Gb. Is
> this flash memory or hard drive?
Flash.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three‹three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
> I'd compare the iPhone more to the Newton. Cool technology, but enough
> gotchas to limit its appeal. No 3G, only available on a poor network,
What is the actual market penetration of 3G in general in the United
States (Apple's primary market)?
> and less capability than PDA phones, though a much cooler design. But
Depends what you're trying to do. I have a Blackberry and I use it
almost exclusively for email/SMS, one or two very short phone calls a
week, and a few minutes a week for web browsing, because the web
browser on any cellphone - and Blackberry's is among the best of a bad
bunch - is so annoying. With an iPhone - which I'd jump at if I hadn't
JUST bought an 8GB nano - the browsing time would increase a lot.
Don't forget that if you're in range of a Wifi AP, you jump off the GSM
network for your browsing. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple
integrated iChat voice into the Wifi side of it.
I also use the memo feature to make notes of movies I want to get,
passwords and so on.
Looks as if there was an iCal icon on the iPhone, and likely that will
sync with a .mac account. What more do you want out of a PDA?
> design issues. In a couple of years there may be a CDMA version, and a
> GSM version with 3G, as well as a way to load applications onto it.
It's practically certain there already is a way to load apps onto it
via iTunes, just not a way that's available to the end-user hacker.
Cingular - and Apple - want to make money selling downloads, just like
every other carrier.
In article <45a587cd$0$4876$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 10 Jan 2007 15:07:11 +0000 karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> > You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews...
> >
>
> Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing
> to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but
> not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first.
Well, a 4 GB nano + a subsidized non-Apple smart phone would probably be
$400-500 anyway[1]. Plus, it's clear Apple is building a platform for
the future here. Remember, the first iPod was $400, and everyone said
that was too expensive. And it was, for the mass market, for a device
which most people didn't even realize they wanted at the time. But it
was enough to get things rolling, and prices dropped, and devices got
more compelling, and the iPod eventually became a mass market hit.
[1] Yes, the non-Apple phone would probably technically play music as
well, but most smart phones don't provide anything like the Apple user
experience. Most of the people I know who have smart phones have iPods
as well.
[snip]
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
In article
<droleary.usenet-D86F29.16063910012007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <45a535d1$0$4883$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > Anybody think Apple's going to let AT&T silkscreen a blue globe on the
> > back? ;-)
>
> Yeah, branding is going to be a really interesting issue to play out. I
> saw the screen displaying the Cingular name and, honestly, I'd rather
> they tag the back of the phone than take up screen real estate. It's
> not like people are going to be changing carriers so often that we need
> to see it displayed on the top of the screen all the time.
That's not exactly Cingular branding, that's telling you who's network
you're on. Lots of phones do that. If you're roaming, or you manage to
get the phone unlocked and working with another carrier's SIM card,
it'll display something else.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three‹three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on America's
> Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
> technically superior CDMA.
> T-Mobile's problem is that there are two many areas in the U.S. where
> their coverage is poor, by virtue of their late entry, and their 1900
MHz
> network.
I'm not sure "late entry" is an excuse. T-Mo simply hasn't benefited as
greatly from mergers as other carriers. The individual wireless
companies that comprised, say, Cingular (PacBell, AT&T Wireless, SBMS and
BellSouth) were certainly no bigger than T-Mo is currently. Same goes
for Verizon's "ancestors." With the exception of Sprint and Nextel (who
themselves merged together, of course) all of the "national" cellular
companies are amalgams of smaller regional ones, due to the fact that the
FCC originally kept cellular regional in order to allow more players in a
very spectrum-limited game. Only after the five 1900MHz licenses per
market were established to augment the two original 800MHz licenses, were
cellular companies really allowed to merge to create the national
carriers we have today.
I'm certainly not arguing with your premise that T-Mo is limited in
coverage compared to other carriers- I'm only arguing with your reasons
why. ;-)
T-Mo really wasn't much later in the game than Sprint, who for a very
long time was the industry leader in native coverage (because the FCC
didn't limit the total territory of 1900MHz carriers like they did 800.)
Sadly, T-Mo's biggest problem is they're sort of a fifth wheel now- all
the companies who would have benefitted most from reciprocal roaming
agreements with them have merged into their largest competitor!
> With Cingular GSM, you can get all the world coverage that T-Mobile
> offers, though you may pay a bit more for international coverage on
other
> T-Mobile networks outside the U.S., than T-Mobile USA customers pay (not
> sure of this actually).
Probably six of one, half dozen of the other. Roaming rates are by
country rather than by carrier, so I suspect Cingular leverages T-Mo's
competition against them in foreign countries.
> I'd compare the iPhone more to the Newton. Cool technology, but enough
> gotchas to limit its appeal. No 3G, only available on a poor network,
and
> less capability than PDA phones, though a much cooler design.
I'm not sure all of that is accurate. 3G is probably coming (and
frankly, unless you're tethering a computer, I find EDGE perfectly
acceptable for PDA use), and despite your problem with Cingular, they
certainly have a decent network, even if it's not the absolute best. As
far as less capability than a PDA phone, it's certainly better spec'd with
a more robust OS, so I expect 3rd party developers will be on this thing
like flies on a horse.
> But not to worry, the first version of any product has always got some
> design issues. In a couple of years there may be a CDMA version, and a
> GSM version with 3G, as well as a way to load applications onto it.
Did I miss something in the keynote? Why is everyone assuming you won't
be able to load apps on this device? Heck, you can load apps on an iPod!
> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on America's
> Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
> technically superior CDMA.
Had they done that it had been unusable outside the US.
They did, however, make an error when they choosed to support EDGE but
not 3G.
And what about FM and DAB radio support?
--
Per Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk
Steve Hix wrote:
> In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on America's
>> Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
>> technically superior CDMA.
>
> Because the world is abandoning CDMA.
CDMA's market share keeps increasing, not only in the U.S., but
especially outside the U.S.. The whole world is moving to CDMA, in one
form or another.
larwe wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> I'd compare the iPhone more to the Newton. Cool technology, but enough
>> gotchas to limit its appeal. No 3G, only available on a poor network,
>
> What is the actual market penetration of 3G in general in the United
> States (Apple's primary market)?
3G is available in all major metro areas, and most minor metro areas.
Cingular is way behind Sprint and Verizon in 3G deployment, but they are
rapidly deploying HSDPA, and in six months or so should have equal
coverage to the other two major carriers.
Sprint is now making a big deal about their 3G speed, versus Cingular's
EDGE speed, but this is an unfair comparison, as Cingular will have 3G
coverage as good as Sprint's by the end of the year, and already has 3G
coverage in the large metro areas.
> > What is the actual market penetration of 3G in general in the United
> > States (Apple's primary market)?
>
> 3G is available in all major metro areas, and most minor metro areas.
That's coverage; not what I was asking. I know the carriers want to
sell streaming pornography to every cellphone in the world, but who is
buying 3G service right now, and for what are they using it?
Besides streaming video, I haven't yet seen an application. All the
carriers either lock out or charge EXORBITANT rates for the one
application I'd find useful, which is using the phone as a cellular
modem with my laptop.
The data services I use (SMS and email) would not be significantly
improved by moving to 3G. Web browsing on a cellphone is so damn
annoying (inherently, due to keyboard, screen and rendering engine
issues) that adding high speed to it wouldn't appreciably improve the
situation.
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> The fact that Apple already had worked with Cingular on a phone probably
> was a factor, too--the Motorola ROKR. Apple was pleased with the
> collaboration with Cingular on that. It was Motorola that screwed that
> phone up, not Cingular.
That's not entirely obvious. That's what's usually blamed,
but my experience talking to folks - regardless of their
interest in the ROKR or not - shows that (a) folks don't
change cellular carriers often, even for a cool phone and
(b) almost uniform hatred of Cingular in particular as a
carrier. Moreover (c) unless someone's up for a contract
renewal - even if they don't have to change carriers to do
it - that's a big deterrent.
Tying a product to cellular carriers - and their contracts -
has a huge impact on potential market penetration. About the
only exception that's made it above that is probably the RAZR,
but note that that's available on *all* carriers, and unlocked
as well.
> > Because the world is abandoning CDMA.
>
> CDMA's market share keeps increasing, not only in the U.S., but
If by "CDMA" you mean specifically IS-95 and its derivatives, I don't
think you're correct.
If by "CDMA" you mean generically any system that uses CDMA to achieve
channel separation, then you're right because next-generation GSM uses
CDMA technology
IS-95 has a good (if quirky) frontend with a relatively poor backend.
GSM has a good (if complex) backend with a fairly limited TDMA
frontend, particularly unsuited to building out coverage over wide
areas.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:46:18 -0600, Kurt wrote
(in article <labolide-B99F2D.18461810012007@news.giganews.com>):
> In article <45a587cd$0$4876$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> At 10 Jan 2007 15:07:11 +0000 karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews...
>>>
>>
>> Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing
>> to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but
>> not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first.
>>
> But the Razr is a crap phone. Tons of user complaints.
Well, I have one, and half of the supposed features I never even bother
to use. like voice-activated dialing. 2 minutes with the moto manual,
and you don't feel like fooling with it. It makes and receives calls,
and has decent battery life. I'll be moving to an iPhone when they're
available, can't wait.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
In article <0001HW.C1CBA20405E66514F0203648@news.verizon.net> ,
Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:50:44 -0600, Kurt wrote (in article
> <labolide-8C6351.18504410012007@news.giganews.com>):
>
> > It was downhill from the Startac for Motorola.
>
> Very good point. That was the last "Gee, I gotta have one of those"
> cell phones, and that was a long time ago.
I dunno. I see a *lot* of RAZR phones around here. Seems like about a
third of the phones I see are RAZRs.
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:26:23 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote
(in article <timmcn-F2A262.08262311012007@news.iphouse.com>):
> In article <0001HW.C1CBA20405E66514F0203648@news.verizon.net> ,
> Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:50:44 -0600, Kurt wrote (in article
>> <labolide-8C6351.18504410012007@news.giganews.com>):
>>
>>> It was downhill from the Startac for Motorola.
>>
>> Very good point. That was the last "Gee, I gotta have one of those"
>> cell phones, and that was a long time ago.
>
> I dunno. I see a *lot* of RAZR phones around here. Seems like about a
> third of the phones I see are RAZRs.
Yeah, but when the startac came out, all you had to do was walk
in a room with one, and a crowd would for around wanting to look
at it and play with it. RAZRs are popular and all, but not the
same buzz.
Guess what will happen the first time somebody walks in with an
iPhone?
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:19:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>
>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 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.
>>
>> Only if you include the Analog coverage.
>
>Unlikely. Most Verizon handsets no longer include AMPS, yet Verizon
>still beat Cingular in every metro area in the country, in many by huge
>margins.
In article <1168487658.395674.317850@k58g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
"larwe" <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks as if there was an iCal icon on the iPhone, and likely that will
> sync with a .mac account. What more do you want out of a PDA?
Ironically, despite Steve's disdain, a stylus. The last generation
Newton actually had excellent handwriting recognition. Apple invented
the PDA, but killed it just when it fulfilled its promise. I actually
used one for seven years before I finally couldn't deal with the battery
situation and the lack of syncing.
Anyway, a PDA needs good data entry (I could actually take notes on the
Newton) and I don't think an onscreen keyboard is it. Nevertheless, I
think the iPhone would be acceptable as a PDA with a good information
management system. Anyone familiar with MoreInfo on the Newton will know
what I mean.
--
John S. Heaney
I don't train in Aikido to protect myself from the world,
but to protect the world from me.
Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone 
Linear Mode
