> > 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.
>
> It's also a failure. It's a solution in search of a problem.
>
> Where's the market after all the fanboys have bought one.
1,000,000 sold as of yesterday, fastest selling Cell Phone in the
HISTORY of cell phones. And you were saying?
Sorry Mark, game is already over, the iPhone will be come the MAIN phone
people use on the planet for the next 50ish years. There is NOTHING your
pea-sized brain can do about it.
> > iPhone appears to be an outstanding design with an outstanding
> > implementation. It has the highest res of all phones,
>
> All you're saying, in effect, is "for many times the price, the iPhone is
> less inadequate for browsing the web than other phones."
>
> With one more diagonal inch it could have FOUR TIMES as many pixels.
> That would permit web browsing without all the zooming in and out that has
> to be done on the iPhone.
Yes, and make it heavy and bulky, and EXPENSIVE. The iPhone right now is
the best balance of features, price, battery life and ease of use. None
of those other phones stand a chance now that the iPhone is $399.
> > seems to have a
> > good keyboard,
>
> The Blackberry crowd doesn't think so. The reports are coming in of
> business users who tried iPhone and went back to Blackberry.
Sure, but there will be plenty of Blackberry bluetooth clone keyboards
in the coming months. Blackberry users will switch to the iPhone in
droves once this happens. Until then, iPhone users will pass them by.
> > 3G isn't a specific need.
>
> That's like saying that "a hard drive isn't a specific need, everything
> you need is on floppy (Mac 128K) or optical disk (first NeXT cube)." The
> fanboys were wrong when they said that then, and they are wrong now.
But you clearly don't understand that 3G is not even close to being in
all markets, plus it kills battery life. No need for that. Plus you seem
to be forgetting that the iPhone has full WiFi, so it's very rare you
are going to be using super slow 3G, you'll want to be on normal WiFi
90% of your waking day.
> > That it is locked to just one
> > carrier is an economic issue, and means nothing at all to many users!
>
> Tell that to the users who discover that T-Mobile has much lower rates
> than AT&T and find that they can't switch.
Why can't you switch? That seems odd? there are PLENTY of companies that
will unlock your iPhone, here is just one.
> That that to the international travellers who buy a local prepay SIM card
> overseas.
Not a problem see above, or wait for the big announcement next month.
Geeeze!
> >> 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.
>
> Nobody else made a car with the same cosmetics as an Edsel. That doesn't
> make the comparison irrelevant.
>
> The iPhone purports to be a phone. It is not a great phone, but it seems
> to work as well as any cheap non-3G GSM phone. Too bad that it costs so
> much more.
It's a WONDERFUL phone, have you use one yet? It appears not. Plus it
has so many more features than even the best smartphones so it makes it
a no brainer as the best phone to buy if you want a quality screen,
extremely long battery life, huge screen, MULTI touch screen, (not the
cheap touch screens that are on some phones) plus you have an iPod, full
video movie player, Google Maps done by Apple! Not in an browser, etc,
etc.
> The iPhone purports to be a portable Internet access device. Too bad that
> the screen resolution is so small so you are forced to use the zoom. Too
> bad that you are stuck with Safari and can't use far superior choices such
> as Firefox. Too bad that you can't download and run third-party apps.
> Too bad there's no SDK to permit you to build your own apps.
The screen resolution is better than any phone currently being sold, and
WebKit makes browsing extremely clear. I've seen a lot of screens in my
life, but never 3, 4 point text that is very easy to read. It's a wonder
of the world, NO other phone is even close to this.
> Because of its limitations, the iPhone isn't a handheld computer. It's
> more like a PDA. But it's not a particularly good PDA, especially for
> enterprise users who need sync to their corporate system.
Sure it is, you just don't have high enough demands to understand it.
> > 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?
>
> Product failures are product lines that die without a successor. They are
> evolutionary dead ends.
Yes, and look at what is coming up next month. OSX Leopard! That will be
5-8 years ahead of Vista, and don't you think they'll be more iPhone
features added? Yep!
> The Newton is an example; Apple's venture into the PDA market failed even
> though it used a lot of technology from Sharp (which is still very much in
> the PDA market).
Ah, but the Newton wasn't created by the Apple that is in business now,
that company died in 1996, Mark you sure don't keep up with history do
you? Apple CREATED the first PDA and Steve killed it. Learn your
history, or don't comment.
> NeXT was a product failure, even though some of its software got salvaged
> and incorporated into Mac OS X. A similar fate befell Lisa.
Yes, but it created the "world wide web", perhaps you've heard of it?
That's a hell of a success! World changing on the order of the iPhone.
(almost) Ah, NeXTSTEP is OSX, not just "parts"... it's the same OS under
the hood.
Steve killed the Lisa with the Mac, the Lisa was the first successful
GUI based machine, and the Mac rode it onto greatness.
> Ricochet was a product failure, even though its zombie hangs on in Denver.
> People who had it loved it. Technically, it was far superior to CDPD
> which at the time was the only alternative. It still died.
Yes, Richochet never had Apple's approval, so it had no future. I see
where Apple might buy part of the Radio Spectrum in today's news. Kinda
cool.
> The HP-35, on the other hand, is not a product failure even though it has
> been decades since the last HP-35 was manufactured. It has many
> successors (some more successful than others) that continue to this day.
I still use RPN, and the HP 12C. Great stuff.
> DOS and MacOS are not product failures either; although themselves dead,
> they were replaced in an evolutionary process by NT and Mac OS X. Their
> users see (correctly) a "newer, better" Windows and a "new, better" Mac
> that run all their familiar old software.
Product "failures" is a little strong, kinda like saying IMAP failed
against POP. They were stepping stones, nothing more.
> > 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.
>
> Newtons are NOT "highly prized by collectors". Take a look at prices on
> eBay before you make such verifiably false assumptions.
You are 100% wrong on that, the 2100 is the gold standard today, check
the prices for a fully wireless one. It's the last gem of the OLD Apple.
> Maybe you highly prize Newtons for your collection. If so, I'll sell you
> a complete MP100 box set with extra accessories (modem, memory card) that
> for the low low price of $500. Get it while it's hot, fanboy!
Mark, why so bitter, do you sense the end is near?
> > 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.
>
> I see that I touched a fanboy nerve. Good.
Not my comment, so not sure what all that is about.
> > If you have INTELLIGENT things to say about products, figure out those
> > things first.
>
> Your definition of "intelligent" seems to be fanboy worship. The iPhone
> has numerous technology and market problems.
After 74 days? Like what?
> Nothing about iPhone technology is excellent. It is a combination of a
> ecletic set of mediocrities. "It's a better web browser than other
> phones", but it isn't a particularly great phone. "It's a smaller and
> cheaper web browser than a laptop", but it does much less and has a tiny
> screen resolution.
Except the OS, the Design, the incredible Sales, the Fast WifI, the
Multi-Touch Screen, the Software, the Hacks, the Video Quality, the
iPod, the Thin size and GREAT battery life, shall I continue to make you
look like a fool?
> The target market for the iPhone are fanboys who go for the cool design
> and overlook the technological deficiencies. The suits looked at iPhone
> and gone back to Blackberry. Although there certainly are fangirls, most
> women look at the iPhone and see an expensive toy.
The market for the iPhone is 6.5 BILLION people, the fact it has an iPod
will quickly make it one of the most recognizable products of our
lifetimes.
> Now we have international travellers who discover that they better not
> bring their iPhone for incoming calls (the way you can for a NORMAL phone)
> if they don't want to be hit with thousands of dollars of GPRS roaming
> charges due to background fetching of email.
No, that's just not true. You can turn off those features if you want.
The iPhone will easily be the first WORLD PHONE that you can go anywhere
and pay the same rate.
> > All you prove is that you are an idiot.
>
> In the language of fanboys, "idiot" means "anyone who does not drink Steve
> Jobs' Kool-Aid."
>
> I will thoroughly enjoy the wails of anguish when iPhone dies. It will be
> sooner rather than later. iPod Touch is clearly the direction of that
> product line. As a product, iPod Touch makes much more sense.
Which in translation means you are TERRIFIED of the iPhone, you living
in Seattle, where there is basically NO TECHNICAL acheivement. Even
Microsoft is totally dumbfounded in what to do about the iPhone. The
Zune failed a horrible death, and now you are mad. Windows CE is
completely wiped out by the iPhone. The developers are moving over to
the iPhone in droves since it gives them a strong platform to build on,
not a weak one like what Blackberry, Symbian, Nokia develop.
The iPhone is the world's first "real" communication device, and it will
wipe out many "cell phone" payers in the months and years to come.
In article <colalovesmacs-62FA11.12031310092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > It's also a failure. It's a solution in search of a problem.
> >
> > Where's the market after all the fanboys have bought one.
>
> 1,000,000 sold as of yesterday, fastest selling Cell Phone in the
> HISTORY of cell phones. And you were saying?
>
> Sorry Mark, game is already over, the iPhone will be come the MAIN phone
> people use on the planet for the next 50ish years.
50ish years? Hmmm, maybe there is some kind of Apple Kool- Aid out there
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
"People can *not* make their own ring tones without hacks or work-arounds".-Snit
> It's also a failure. It's a solution in search of a problem.
Not really- at the very least, it's a very high-end MP3 phone.
They've created a new type of converged device- instead of a high-end
PDA phone with mediocre media player, they've developed a high-end
media phone with mediocre PDA. What's wrong with that?
> Where's the market after all the fanboys have bought one.
Someone tired of dragging both his RAZR and iPod with him everywhere
he goes? Seems like a large enough market to me. Certainly it won't
replace "every other phone within a year" like the fanboys claim, but
it is and will continue to be a success, IMO.
> All you're saying, in effect, is "for many times the price, the
> iPhone
> is less inadequate for browsing the web than other phones."
No, for about the same price as a high-end PDA phone it's a far less
inadequate browser. Again, what's wrong with that?
> With one more diagonal inch it could have FOUR TIMES as many pixels.
> That would permit web browsing without all the zooming in and out
> that has to be done on the iPhone.
And easily fit in your shirt pocket...
....if you use David Byrne's tailor...
Comparing the iPhone to your UMPC again, Mark? Different products,
different price points, different users, get it?
> The Blackberry crowd doesn't think so. The reports are coming in
> of business users who tried iPhone and went back to Blackberry.
Good for them. They've found a different product works better for a
different need, like you and I apparently did. I don't see you
bashing the Blackberry for IT'S tiny screen and even-more inadequate
browser. Why does iPhone get this special treatment? The rabid
legion of fanboys doesn't make the PRODUCT itself bad.
> The iPhone purports to be a phone. It is not a great phone, but it
> seems to work as well as any cheap non-3G GSM phone. Too bad that
> it costs so much more.
It's now $100 more than it's phoneless twin, the iPod Touch.
Certainly $100 seems reasonable for cellular capability.
> The iPhone purports to be a portable Internet access device. Too
> bad
> that the screen resolution is so small so you are forced to use the
> zoom. Too bad that you are stuck with Safari and can't use far
> superior choices such as Firefox.
So which phone on the market can use Firefox? My WinMo phone can't.
Blackberries can't. Why not also mock the iPhone for not being able
to levitate? Your main complaint seems to be "despite currently
having the best browser on any mobile phone available, it's still not
as good as a laptop!" Damning condemnation ideed.
> Too bad that you can't download and run third-party apps. Too bad
> there's no SDK to permit you to build your own apps.
Agreed. But to be fair, I don't recall Apple releasing an iPod SDK
either...
> Because of its limitations, the iPhone isn't a handheld computer.
Correct. They also don't pitch it as one.
> It's more like a PDA. But it's not a particularly good PDA,
> especially for enterprise users who need sync to their corporate
> system.
Agreed again. One of the many reaons I don't own one. But being a
lousy hammer doesn't make an excellent screwdriver a failure. It's a
pretty nice consumer product, and does an excellent job doing what it
does. What's wrong with that?
> Product failures are product lines that die without a successor.
> They are evolutionary dead ends.
That certainly is far too early to call with the iPhone.
If it's "first gen" deficiencies are stumbling blocks to success
(which so far doesn't seem to be the case), Apple can fix them. They
could releae an SDK tomorrow if needed. They could add 3G to the
next model. Update the bluetooth software to add serial port support
and allow external GPS. Improve the file readers to add editing-
etc.
> Nothing about iPhone technology is excellent. It is a combination
> of a ecletic set of mediocrities.
I disagree. I think it's an excellent piece of hardware crippled by
some bad business decisions (bad for end-users, not necessarily
bad for Apple.)
>"It's a better web browser than other phones", but it isn't a
> particularly great phone.
The same is often said of most PDA phones. My running joke when
anyone asks if I like my PPC phone is "I love it- it does e-mail,
web, music, movies, GPS- it does everything but make a phone call!"
> "It's a smaller and cheaper web browser than a laptop", but it does
> much less and has a tiny screen resolution.
I have never heard anyone (except you) claim the iPhone was a
competitor to a laptop. If anything, the (over)reliance on iTunes
makes that comparison ridiculous. Apple calls it the "best iPod
ever" and the "best cellphone ever." I'll give them the first, but
disagree with the secondary.
I have the same complaint with both WinMo phones and the iPhone- I
think both platforms are intentionally crippled to DISCOURAGE use as
a laptop replacement, to prevent cannibalizing sales of their core
businesses. (For MS, XP/Vista, for Apple, computer hardware.) For
every one who's PPC (and it's ~$10 WinMo license fee) replaces a
laptop is one less ~$30 license of Vista sold!
> The target market for the iPhone are fanboys who go for the cool
> design and overlook the technological deficiencies. The suits
> looked at iPhone and gone back to Blackberry.
Sure. UPS doesn't buy a lot of motorcycles to paint brown and
deliver packages with either. The iPhone isn't an enterprise e-mail
device. Strangely enough, it's coincidentally not marketed as one,
either. Different products, different market, get it yet?
> Although there certainly are fangirls, most women look at the iPhone
> and see an expensive toy.
Crass stereotypes aside, how is that a problem? Do women eschew
expensive toys? (And, if so, where does one find these women?) ;-)
> Now we have international travellers who discover that they better
> not bring their iPhone for incoming calls (the way you can for a
> NORMAL phone) if they don't want to be hit with thousands of dollars
> of GPRS roaming charges due to background fetching of email.
Yep. I can't imagine what stupid company would sell a device that
automatically retrieves e-mail, or even worse, create an entire
business model around it! *Cough* *RIM* *Cough*
> In the language of fanboys, "idiot" means "anyone who does not
> drink Steve Jobs' Kool-Aid."
There's constructive critique, and ridiculous naysaying. You are
simply demonstrating the latter, which maks you no better than the
fanboys polluting these discussions....
> I will thoroughly enjoy the wails of anguish when iPhone dies. It
> will be sooner rather than later. iPod Touch is clearly the
> direction of that product line. As a product, iPod Touch makes much
> more sense.
Depends. If I were an AT&T customer (almost 1/3 of cellular market
is) looking at a Touch, why not upgrade to an iPhone for a lousy C-
note?
> iPhone is destined to go down as an oddball that was a phone too,
> but more expensive and with less memory.
The same could easily have been said of the first Pocket PC phone
(the XDA) in 2002. It was a lousy phone akwardly grafted onto a low-
end PPC. Five years later, try to find a PPC without an intergrated
phone!
Who knows? In five years it might be almost as imposible to buy an
MP3 player without a phone built-in! ;-)
(Actually, considering the ease of changing SIM-based phones, I
expect more cheap crap to integrate phones as GSM hardware prices
continue to drop! Camping without the Coleman "Lanternfone?" Pshaw!
A beach outing without your combo ice-chest/radio/phone? Insane!
Bluetooth in the car? Why? Just stick your SIM into the slot next
to the CD! ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
> Yes, but MOT doesn't have a loyal following such as Apple. Every
> one of
> those first million iPhones went into the hands of people that
> understand modern technology, require the best in their lives and
> have
> an interest in making Apple even more successful.
Um, no, a good number went into the sequined purses of Paris Hilton-
types, right next to their Chihuahuas, because it's the hot phone of
the moment. It probably replaced their once-"hot," now pedestrian
RAZRs...
> It simply opens up room for the $499 16GB model and 3G for people
that
> live in those markets that 3G actually works, say around Nov 12th?
My
> 4GB's now have more features than when I bought them, they will
have
> more features again in 2-3 weeks, etc, etc... I think you are
forgetting
> that OSX is under the hood of these things, so basically anything
OSX
> can run, the iPhone can run. Think about it...
Yes, as soon as it's ported for a completely different processor-
"think about it."
> MOT, Nokia, RIM have no easy way to do this, they are pretty much
stuck
> with the hardware in place. Apple iPhone owners aren't.
Wow, Apple HARDWARE updates via firmware updates! That's
impressive. How do they manage that? Nanobots perhaps? Von Neumann
machines?
Poor Moto, MS and RIM have to rely on the tens of thousands of
independent developers with intimate knowledge of the hardware and
OS, while iPhone gets the dozens of Apple programmers they yanked off
of Leopard long enough to write an iPhone patch...
> Sure, and last time I checked the 8GB iPod Touch was selling for
$299,
> about $99 more than the iPhone, but there is also the 16GB model of
the
> iPod Touch, so what is missing? can you guess?
Yeah, a 16GB $499 iPhone with the same basic hardware as the others.
Still no $99 smartphone killer in the line.
> > Here we go again, Oxy. Lower-end CE products can be had for $99
or
> > less- like a T-Mo Dash, Moto Q or AT&T's Blackjack. Sure they are
> > less featured, but they handle e-mail, web, media, etc. acceptably
> > well, particularly at their price points.
>
> But they don't have the quality screen, that's probably the most
amazing
> thing about the iPhone, nobody has it at this price point. Nor the
iPod,
> nor the Multi-touch interface, WiFi, etc...
So? That still doesn't say "bye bye" to products in different
categories any more than BMW's best car says "bye bye" to the Toyotas
and Hondas that outsell them handily.
> > Where the iPhone may "hurt" WinMo is where it deserves to be hurt-
> > the people who were buying "business class" devices for
"consumer" use,
>
> I really don't see any separation between the two markets.
I'm not surprised- you don't see a lot of things you choose to ignore.
> I say, let
> the best phone "win" and currently the iPhone is the best in the
> consumer space if you want to call it that, and in business, it's
> already doing freaky things like this...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX_6yIO2bR8
>
> Once the SDK is ready for the iPhone, watch out...
Where is it? I haven't seen SJ's "apology letter" for not releasing
one yet. ;-)
> I just look at Apple's storied history of wiping out entire markets
> and placing their STAMP on the new one. Everyone uses a Mac today,
"Everyone" uses the product with a 5% market share?
> and sure
> "most" people use the cheap MS clone of the Mac, but if there
wasn't a
> Mac, people would still be using DOS, same with the Laser Printer,
same
> with Wireless, same with the iPod, etc, etc.
BS- innovation is enevitable.
The GUI needed horsepower, and the ability to multitask- power early
computers couldn't deliver.
As far as the iPod goes, even with Apple's market dominance the iPod
was good for competitors for putting MP3 players on the map. I'd
rather have a 5% market share of today's MP3 player market than a 90%
share of the pre-iPod MP3 player market.
> Ah, but you aren't looking far enough forward...
For the purposes of THIS discussion, why should I? You stated that
THIS $399 iPhone will say "bye bye" NOW to all other smartphones.
> The iPod in 2001 only
> came in White, Black and White Screen for $399, now look at the
iPod
> Touch a mere 6 years later. What happened? Full color, touch
screen, 8GB
> of flash, WiFi, a browser, coverflow, etc, etc... for $99 less.
Yes. In 2001 I paid $99 for a Nokia 8290 that made phone calls and
texted. Today $99 buys a WinMo smartphone with QVGA color screen
with media player, e-mail, browser, camera and Wi-fi. Do you
magically think only one company in an industry innovates?
> The exact same thing will happen with the iPhone... you'll have
iPhone
> nanos, an entire "iPhone" in an ear piece... during the next 6 years.
>
> Sit by the sidelines, or join in the fun Todd.
The other manufacturers don't sit on the sidelines either. They
matured the market to the point that the iPhone could make an entry.
Despite the 13 secret spices, er, I mean 200+ patents, there's still
"nothing new under the sun" in the iPhone in terms of functionality.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
In article
<colalovesmacs-3FC7D2.11132610092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> Yes, but MOT doesn't have a loyal following such as Apple. Every one of
> those first million iPhones went into the hands of people that
> understand modern technology, require the best in their lives and have
> an interest in making Apple even more successful.
This is weird. Do you think there are people trying to make Apple
successful, just like those critics have claimed for so long?
I definitely don't.
I know a lot of people who rabidly wouldn't use anything but Mac any
more; in several industries. But I don't think any of them buy products
so that Apple does better. They buy what they need.
The difference with Apple is that they are perceived as being
well-designed and well-considered innovative products. That means the
buyers aren't taking chances with them. It's a big deal to know a
company works that hard on their products.
But that means that people buy Apple products _confidently_ and with an
interest in the innovation of products.
Don't you see that behavior?
That's certainly what happened with iPhone.
In article <sSgFi.17579$Vf1.16627@fe097.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> Yeah, a 16GB $499 iPhone with the same basic hardware as the others.
> Still no $99 smartphone killer in the line.
I'd argue that it's already either far better than the $99-level
competitors, or that the ones you are looking at are simply entirely
different kinds of devices.
But more importantly, get off the idea that this is a 'smartphone
killer.' There is no reason for the attitude, and it is not in any way
designed or intended to 'kill smartphones.'
This is merely AN ENTRY in the market -- Apple is not trying to defeat
all the devices anywhere near the category. They are trying to do
similar things, in a different way.
It is the DIFFERENT they are trying for, not the 'killer' in the market.
Stop working from Microsoft's attitudes; they're the idiots, not the
goalmakers.
In article <sSgFi.17579$Vf1.16627@fe097.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> Yes. In 2001 I paid $99 for a Nokia 8290 that made phone calls and
> texted. Today $99 buys a WinMo smartphone with QVGA color screen
> with media player, e-mail, browser, camera and Wi-fi. Do you
> magically think only one company in an industry innovates?
>
>
> > The exact same thing will happen with the iPhone... you'll have
> iPhone
> > nanos, an entire "iPhone" in an ear piece... during the next 6 years.
Silly, ignorant, and presumptive nonsense.
Everyone working in technology today should be insulted that you think
so litte goes into this and expect so much from them so easily.
> there's still
> "nothing new under the sun" in the iPhone in terms of functionality.
No, I think you mean there is nothing _major_ and totally original in
the device. Unless you count visual voicemail, which is a major
difference, or the scrolling and browsing of the touchscreen, the input
keyboard, the no-compromise browser, the music-scrolling display, the
great music player, huge storage, etc.
Why don't you count those?
Is really new stuff so necessary? Is it done in ANY other device in
this category?
Does something have to be a true groundbreaker in *huge* ways to be
considered at all?
If so, then why is anyone buying any other phone model?
Is it really because it doesn't have a mass transporter and fusion
power source built in?
In article
<alpine.LRH.0.9999.0709100824390.23506@shiva1.cac. washington.edu>, Mark
Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It's also a failure.
You don't think it's a little early to claim this is a fact?
It seems to be doing very well; I can't see any thinking person
guessing this will be a failure.
> It's a solution in search of a problem.
No; again, this is evolutionary. It is a package of alterations in
search of a market. It is not an entirely new solution.
> Where's the market after all the fanboys have bought one.
It doesn't appear to be 'fanboys' buying it in the first place!
Are you entirely new to this topic? This has been covered for weeks!
> > iPhone appears to be an outstanding design with an outstanding
> > implementation. It has the highest res of all phones,
>
> All you're saying, in effect, is "for many times the price, the iPhone is
> less inadequate for browsing the web than other phones."
That's what you think the statement above means? (It isn't!)
It isn't many times the price of similar phones, and it isn't less
adequate for browsing. It is admittedly slower when away from a WiFi
network than many other phones.
> With one more diagonal inch it could have FOUR TIMES as many pixels.
Wow. The cheap ones you are comparing it to could have at last three
times as many without having any larger size at all; yet you are
claiming they are better than iPhone at browsing, even though you
wouldn't be able to see most of the pages?
> That would permit web browsing without all the zooming in and out that has
> to be done on the iPhone.
Huh? Again, you're comparing to phones with, at the very, very best,
offer around 300 x 220? And you're complaining that people have to zoom
too much on iPhone?
> > seems to have a
> > good keyboard,
>
> The Blackberry crowd doesn't think so. The reports are coming in of
> business users who tried iPhone and went back to Blackberry.
Okay; in absolute terms: it has a practical keyboard.
I am not claiming that people who have been using and are very happy
with other forms are going to like it right away.
But I have read a lot of comments from people who used it for more than
a couple days that say it's a very good implementation.
> > 3G isn't a specific need.
>
> That's like saying that "a hard drive isn't a specific need, everything
> you need is on floppy (Mac 128K) or optical disk (first NeXT cube)."
No, it isn't even remotely like saying that.
I am writing that 3G isn't a specifically necessary tech for such a
device, not that wireless isn't specifically necessary. You
generalized; I am talking about a very specific wireless protocol. 3G
is not the beginning and end of the wireless world.
> fanboys were wrong when they said that then, and they are wrong now.
No idea what fanboys or what statements you are talking about; ignored.
> > That it is locked to just one
> > carrier is an economic issue, and means nothing at all to many users!
>
> Tell that to the users who discover that T-Mobile has much lower rates
> than AT&T and find that they can't switch.
All iPhone buyers have known from the very start that they are using
AT&T. All knew it was a 2yr contract.
I have not seen ANY lower price from T-Mobile, and you certainly cannot
claim anything _much_ lower until you show it.
> That that to the international travellers who buy a local prepay SIM card
> overseas.
THIS is the first honest disadvantage you have shown; iPhone is not yet
a practical choice for international use, since it's current agreements
are US only. That is neither any kind of surprise nor a problem; it
isn't being sold as such. Everyone buying it is told this.
So if you are such a traveller, you would know to check this detail and
you'd know it isn't (today) your better choice. That doesn't mean it
isn't a great device.
> >> 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.
>
> Nobody else made a car with the same cosmetics as an Edsel. That doesn't
> make the comparison irrelevant.
You are going to compare functions and features with nothing more
meaningful than the shape of the front grille of a car?
> The iPhone purports to be a phone. It is not a great phone, but it seems
> to work as well as any cheap non-3G GSM phone. Too bad that it costs so
> much more.
Yes, it does cost a lot more than a cheap phone. But that comparison is
nothing less than STUPID, since it also does SEVERAL things HUGELY
different and better. Not recognizing this show you to be an IDIOT;
there is no excuse.
Yes, if you needed NOTHING MORE than a cell phone with an internet
function (a 300 x 200 visual, but fast), then you'd be fine with a
cheap phone. BUYERS KNOW IT. They simply aren't all satisfied with just
that.
> The iPhone purports to be a portable Internet access device. Too bad that
> the screen resolution is so small so you are forced to use the zoom.
Asked and answered; you are looking more like a moron with every repeat
of this stupid comment.
> Too
> bad that you are stuck with Safari and can't use far superior choices such
> as Firefox.
Far superior? They are very similar in most respects!
But this isn't a computer; the differences aren't that big in any case.
> Too bad that you can't download and run third-party apps.
Finally, a truthful comment with some understanding. If you need
third-party apps (most people do not) you wouldn't find this a
solution.
> Too bad there's no SDK to permit you to build your own apps.
Wow -- wrong, right, and irrelevant all in one statement.
There is an SDK. It's not the kind you mean in all respects, though.
Neither do very many users need an SDK for the phone they buy.
> Because of its limitations, the iPhone isn't a handheld computer. It's
> more like a PDA. But it's not a particularly good PDA, especially for
> enterprise users who need sync to their corporate system.
YES -- it is more like a PDA. (No one claimed it was a portable
computer!) And it is meant to be for people, not for corporations, so
lacking a business network sync is nonsensical. (It's also stupid
because businesses usually supply the devices they need employees to
use, and this iPhone has a camera, which many wouldn't allow.)
In article
<alpine.LRH.0.9999.0709100824390.23506@shiva1.cac. washington.edu>, Mark
Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> Product failures are product lines that die without a successor. They are
> evolutionary dead ends.
Ah; you 'meant' to write product lines or technology directions, right?
> The Newton is an example; Apple's venture into the PDA market failed even
> though it used a lot of technology from Sharp (which is still very much in
> the PDA market).
Yes, it did. But the reasons were complex, and as far as I recall none
of them are remotely like anything you are claiming in this context.
> NeXT was a product failure, even though some of its software got salvaged
> and incorporated into Mac OS X. A similar fate befell Lisa.
NeXT would be called a corporate failure; almost everything they did or
used is used today, so no product failure.
<snipped>
> DOS and MacOS are not product failures either; although themselves dead,
> they were replaced in an evolutionary process by NT and Mac OS X. Their
> users see (correctly) a "newer, better" Windows and a "new, better" Mac
> that run all their familiar old software.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Newtons are NOT "highly prized by collectors". Take a look at prices on
> eBay before you make such verifiably false assumptions.
No, ask a collector what he thinks about it to get that information.
You don't have to imply it by an indirect factor that doesn't show that
opinion. (eBay prices are influenced by how many are available and how
many are bidding, two factors that do nothing to reflect the collector
opinion. But collectors are often very well informed about why devices
are interesting.)
> Maybe you highly prize Newtons for your collection. If so, I'll sell you
> a complete MP100 box set with extra accessories (modem, memory card) that
> for the low low price of $500. Get it while it's hot, fanboy!
If you're calling _me_ a fanboy, you're not reading at all.
> > 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.
>
> I see that I touched a fanboy nerve. Good.
No; a person tired of your whining. If you know what you are talking
about, you are unable to make it fit into reasoning or logic.
You might notice my comment isn't about defending anything in
particular; it's about being tired of stupid complaints.
> > If you have INTELLIGENT things to say about products, figure out those
> > things first.
>
> Your definition of "intelligent" seems to be fanboy worship. The iPhone
> has numerous technology and market problems.
Which I clearly admitted. You just misapplied them later.
Like the whining about having to zoom into a Web page, when the iPhone
has the highest res of all models you were talking about.
> Nothing about iPhone technology is excellent.
Huh? Not the new input, home screen, control of images and track lists?
Not the slim design, not the music app, not even the amount of storage?
> It is a combination of a
> ecletic set of mediocrities. "It's a better web browser than other
> phones", but it isn't a particularly great phone. "It's a smaller and
> cheaper web browser than a laptop", but it does much less and has a tiny
> screen resolution.
Tinier than a laptop, of course. Which of those laptops are this size
and include a phone? which ones are great flash-memory music players?
For that matter, which of those cheap phones have so much storage, or a
great image viewer, or a large res like this?
if I were using all three (laptop, cheap phone, iPhone) on an 802.11.g
network, would you show how iPhone doesn't have any advantages?
> The target market for the iPhone are fanboys who go for the cool design
> and overlook the technological deficiencies.
The one deficiency we know is the EDGE instead of 3G. One.
> The suits looked at iPhone
> and gone back to Blackberry.
Not 'gone to.' Already stuck with. No surprise, since (as everyone
everywhere has told you innumerable times) this is not intended
specifically for businesses to buy in bulk. Again, witness that it has
a camera; that is a signal to you it isn't made for businesses.
Not all devices have to be made specifically for businesses.
> Although there certainly are fangirls, most
> women look at the iPhone and see an expensive toy.
Oh? Do you have figures for this strange claim?
Do you also have a way to demonstrate how it is relevant?
> Now we have international travellers who discover that they better not
> bring their iPhone for incoming calls (the way you can for a NORMAL phone)
That is not what happened, not why or how they sid they were using them.
> if they don't want to be hit with thousands of dollars of GPRS roaming
> charges due to background fetching of email.
.... and also is no different from how every other such phone would have
charged them. Not at all different. Didn't you read it?
> > All you prove is that you are an idiot.
>
> In the language of fanboys, "idiot" means "anyone who does not drink Steve
> Jobs' Kool-Aid."
No, when I say it is is because you have repeatedly demonstrated that
you don't understand your own contexts, the details of your argument,
the comparisons you are making, or how to make them politely and
effectively in the thread. You failed, not me.
Not one part of what i wrote to you claimed it is good because of
Apple, Jobs, or any faith I have in them. None of it. Read it again.
> I will thoroughly enjoy the wails of anguish when iPhone dies.
THAt is a great sign you are not even trying to make intelligent or
fair comparisons; you are assuming and preparing for an emotional
reaction to the failure of a product that is totally unimportant to
you.
> It will be
> sooner rather than later. iPod Touch is clearly the direction of that
> product line. As a product, iPod Touch makes much more sense.
Are you saying there is something in ALL of the other technology that
is excellent? You argued that it was all totally irrelevant and
unimportant, even that there was nothing else there, earlier!
> iPhone is destined to go down as an oddball that was a phone too, but more
> expensive and with less memory.
A prediction from someone with a deomnstrated failure to understand
what it has or put any of it in context. We'll have to file that right
with the other predictions that generate this amount of respect and
intelligent arguments.
In article <rSgFi.17578$Vf1.1181@fe097.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> Comparing the iPhone to your UMPC again, Mark? Different products,
> different price points, different users, get it?
No, he doesn't. Apparently, if it doesn't offer every feature he
respects, it's junk for everyone else.
And he seems to think the advantages of a cheap cell phone over iPhone
and the advantages of a laptop over iPhone converge as one argument; so
he clearly doesn't understand his own approach at all.
> > The Blackberry crowd doesn't think so. The reports are coming in
> > of business users who tried iPhone and went back to Blackberry.
>
>
> Good for them. They've found a different product works better for a
> different need, like you and I apparently did. I don't see you
> bashing the Blackberry for IT'S tiny screen and even-more inadequate
> browser. Why does iPhone get this special treatment? The rabid
> legion of fanboys doesn't make the PRODUCT itself bad.
Now, wait; I don't see anyone more rabid or nearly as loud as the BB
users in this topic. Certainly the people lauding iPhone aren't as
fanboyish as that lot.
Reading their garbage, you'd think BB perfected all wireless operations
in a tiny device and had all iPhone features done far better.
> > The iPhone purports to be a portable Internet access device. Too
> > bad
> > that the screen resolution is so small so you are forced to use the
> > zoom. Too bad that you are stuck with Safari and can't use far
> > superior choices such as Firefox.
>
> So which phone on the market can use Firefox? My WinMo phone can't.
> Blackberries can't. Why not also mock the iPhone for not being able
> to levitate? Your main complaint seems to be "despite currently
> having the best browser on any mobile phone available, it's still not
> as good as a laptop!" Damning condemnation ideed.
Yes; another problem with his not having a specific context in mind, or
not understanding what his complaints are about.
iPhone can't use alternate browsers, but he has no complaint about the
browser or huzzah for the alternatives; does he want alternatives even
if there is no difference?
> > Product failures are product lines that die without a successor.
> > They are evolutionary dead ends.
> That certainly is far too early to call with the iPhone.
> If it's "first gen" deficiencies are stumbling blocks to success
> (which so far doesn't seem to be the case), Apple can fix them. They
> could releae an SDK tomorrow if needed. They could add 3G to the
> next model. Update the bluetooth software to add serial port support
> and allow external GPS. Improve the file readers to add editing-
> etc.
Apparently, in order to get really excited against it, he has to
pretend Apple can do nothing about any of their decisions, that
everyone else careas about all the same things he does, and that no one
has said anything good about using it already.
> Apple calls it the "best iPod
> ever" and the "best cellphone ever." I'll give them the first, but
> disagree with the secondary.
Why? What part of the cell phone part isn't of that caliber?
> > Now we have international travellers who discover that they better
> > not bring their iPhone for incoming calls (the way you can for a
> > NORMAL phone) if they don't want to be hit with thousands of dollars
> > of GPRS roaming charges due to background fetching of email.
>
>
> Yep. I can't imagine what stupid company would sell a device that
> automatically retrieves e-mail, or even worse, create an entire
> business model around it! *Cough* *RIM* *Cough*
How does he champion BB while ignoring that is exactly what they are
built on? Simple -- he heard there was an article about overcharging an
iPhone user, didn't understand it, and assumed it was different from
how his favorite stuff worked.
> > I will thoroughly enjoy the wails of anguish when iPhone dies. It
> > will be sooner rather than later. iPod Touch is clearly the
> > direction of that product line. As a product, iPod Touch makes much
> > more sense.
>
> Depends. If I were an AT&T customer (almost 1/3 of cellular market
> is) looking at a Touch, why not upgrade to an iPhone for a lousy C-
> note?
.... and wouldn't some people want to put it all in one package, if they
are already happy with everything else about the device? He's
self-contradicting here, but he doesn't seem to see it.
> > Apple calls it the "best iPod
> > ever" and the "best cellphone ever." I'll give them the first,
but
> > disagree with the secondary.
> Why? What part of the cell phone part isn't of that caliber?
I'm not picking on the iPhone specifically- it's my feeling about
"smartphones" in general- no phone is easier to use AS A PHONE than a
plain-vanilla 12-key keypad phone. Any device where I have to select
the "phone app" (via any means) and use a touch screen to dial is
inherently more akward than dedicated phone device with a dedicated
physical dial-pad.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
On Sep 9, 5:26 pm, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:52:19 -0700, Mark Crispin
>
> <m...@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.
>
> I don't recall the Edsel selling 1 million in the first 3 months. I
> recall everyone saying how ugly it was, as opposed to how perfectly
> styled theiPhoneis.
>
> The Edsel was named after an individual, Apple does not have
> a phone called the "Steve".
On Sep 9, 5:26 pm, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:52:19 -0700, Mark Crispin
>
> <m...@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.
>
> I don't recall the Edsel selling 1 million in the first 3 months. I
> recall everyone saying how ugly it was, as opposed to how perfectly
> styled theiPhoneis.
>
> The Edsel was named after an individual, Apple does not have
> a phone called the "Steve".
Larry wrote:
> blog4profits <ds@usamedia.tv> wrote in
> news:1191893467.798739.203400@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com:
>
>> Here is a great video on using the iphone:
>> http://cases-cradles-cables.com/category/apple/
>>
>>
>>
>
> Does it show you how to change the battery or install an 8GB SD
> card?....
>
Since Oxford can do it in 2.37 seconds, using only one hand, all battery
swaps are going to be outsourced to him.
> blog4profits <ds@usamedia.tv> wrote in
> news:1191893467.798739.203400@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com:
>
>> Here is a great video on using the iphone:
>> http://cases-cradles-cables.com/category/apple/
>>
>
> Does it show you how to change the battery or install an 8GB SD
> card?....
>
> Larry
Don't you know Apple is such an innovative company their batteries last
forever?? <G>
In article <1xrug7ut5c2de.ipc3e80pkkji.dlg@40tude.net>,
CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:22:22 +0000, Larry wrote:
>
> > blog4profits <ds@usamedia.tv> wrote in
> > news:1191893467.798739.203400@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com:
> >
> >> Here is a great video on using the iphone:
> >> http://cases-cradles-cables.com/category/apple/
> >>
> >
> > Does it show you how to change the battery or install an 8GB SD
> > card?....
> >
> > Larry
>
> Don't you know Apple is such an innovative company their batteries last
> forever?? <G>
How many times have you had to replace the battery on your cell phone?
"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-B4C54E.19091510102007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <1xrug7ut5c2de.ipc3e80pkkji.dlg@40tude.net>,
> CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:22:22 +0000, Larry wrote:
>>
>> > blog4profits <ds@usamedia.tv> wrote in
>> > news:1191893467.798739.203400@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com:
>> >
>> >> Here is a great video on using the iphone:
>> >> http://cases-cradles-cables.com/category/apple/
>> >>
>> >
>> > Does it show you how to change the battery or install an 8GB SD
>> > card?....
>> >
>> > Larry
>>
>> Don't you know Apple is such an innovative company their batteries last
>> forever?? <G>
>
> How many times have you had to replace the battery on your cell phone?
>
About once a year. At a cost of under 30.00 For OEM
Whats apple's charge to replace there battery ? Oh, 75.00
On Sep 9, 9:40 pm, Bill Gates <i...@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote:
> This sums it up quite well:
>
> Apple's price cutting practice, while heavily criticised by the press,
> is not dissimilar to others in the IT industry. The NY Times put the
> price drop in context: Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultra-thin
> Razr phone for $499 with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six
> months later, Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped
> the price to $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the
> end of 2005, the price was $99.
>
> At $599 the iPhone was one of the most expensive smart phones on the
> market. More expensive than a Treo, and more expensive than a
> Blackberry.
Which does far, far less.
>At $399 however it's one of the least expensive. That,
Still a bad value considering that even my cheap old junky Sanyo, or
some old Nokia found in a thrift store can runapps which the iPhone
CANT.
> coupled with the fact that the iPhone -- with its very high resolution,
Which 3rd party apps can't use
> huge screen,
Which 3rd party apps can't use
>and advanced 3D graphics --
No games to take advantage on it.
> makes other phones look like
> bricks,
at least on those "bricks" you can run real 3rd party apps on them.
> and that means that Apple is going to have a runaway success on
> its hands.
>
Blah, whatever. It's just another wonderful device that has been
horribly fucked up and crippled because of profits and business
politics. iPhone is just another POS on the techno-crap-pile of
history.
> ---
>
> I think the most amazing thing about the iPhone is the screen, it's FAR
> better than any computer or hand held device out there, and now at $399
> for a great IMAP mail client, full web browser, it's going to roll over
> any Microsoft CE product like a steamroller. Bye bye MS with the iPhone.
Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel 
They were stepping stones, nothing more.
