Apple launches AppleTV and iPhone [Archive]

DemoCoder

09-Jan-2007, 21:17

Expensive, but look what you get. A video iPod alone will set you back $250, but this is not just an iPod, it's got WiFi, GPRS, a GPS tracker, runs OS X, multitouch, phone, et al.

As for why no 3G? Well, it's GSM and the only 3G GSM in the US is Cingular's UMTS network, which is still fledging, and buggy. If they produce an EVDO version, they'd have to partner with Sprint.

For their first phone, I think they decided to take the less risky path and stay single air-interface, single carrier, and with a known chipset.

I would bet that next year's MacWorld will see several skus, including a smaller one, and one with either UMTS, or EVDO support, plus 802.11n, or maybe given Apple's tendency to buck the group, WiMAX. I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't really want to be stuck with network operators and is looking to the day when VOIP and packet networks will turn them into commodity bitpipes.

Skrying

09-Jan-2007, 21:22

Signed with Cingular through 2009.

Arwin

09-Jan-2007, 21:23

Expensive, but look what you get. A video iPod alone will set you back $250, but this is not just an iPod, it's got WiFi, GPRS, a GPS tracker, runs OS X, multitouch, phone, et al.

Video iPods are rather expensive too, though. ;) But anyway, it is an impressive device. It'll sell. When the iPod was launched, it was ridiculously expensive too, especially for what it was - or so I thought anyway. It sold like mad just the same.

Mize

09-Jan-2007, 21:28

5 hour talk time, 16 hours of iPod functionality (music, et al)

Fuck! Why do they do this to me? Now I need to buy ANOTHER phone, after I just bought 2 video ipods.

I've been nursing a decrepit Treo 650 for over two years waiting for a better phone...buy why only GSM? GSM coverage just sucks in the US (although it's great most everywhere else).

DemoCoder

09-Jan-2007, 21:55

Biz decision. I don't think they want to bite off too much in the beginning. GSM means they can sell the phone worldwide and on many carriers easily. Going with CDMA would mean Verizon or Sprint in the US, and there is no simcard-style interoperability between those, which means a headache for Apple as they'd have to support Sprint and Verizon's differing CDMA infrastructure.

Cingular is the largest wireless network in the US, 58 million customers. I think that's a good as reason as any to go with GSM. Plus, they get most of the rest of the world too. It's a quad-band worldphone.

GSM chipsets are cheaper and more mature too, and way more service infrastructure exists for GSM in terms of value added services. (GSM is much more than the air-interface)

Mize

09-Jan-2007, 22:01

Agreed that GSM is the best biz move for apple, but I carry a cheapo phone on verizon with me at all times because I *know* my Cingular Treo 650 is going to drop critical calls or have no coverage in the middle of bumfick west verkota. The frustration is that I have better GSM service in China, Spain, wherever.

Really want that phone :)

DemoCoder

09-Jan-2007, 22:12

I'd love it if it had UMTS or EVDO, guess we'll have to wait.

BTW, I misspoke. Apparently, it doesn't have GPS. Some mac rumor site inferred Google Maps integration == GPS. I think you'll still have to enter stuff manually, or use AGPS or cell tower location.

Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

09-Jan-2007, 22:19

That is an amazing multi-function device, but to be taken seriously as a phone over here in the cut-throat European phone market, it's going to have to get better battery life. Especially if you use it's other functions and then find you've got not enough charge left to make a call when you really need to. I'd also like to see bigger storage on it, given the current Ipods have a lot more.

That said, it's a revolutionary way of presenting all that functionality in a much, much better package. I'm not a massive fan of Apple, but it's nice to see there are still some big companies making this kind of forward thinking product.

Skrying

09-Jan-2007, 22:20

I must say, I am impressed. That's almost hard to get out, as I'm a fairly well known "Apple basher" (Frankly I've enjoyed my OS X experiences, but I hate iTunes and think iPods are way over priced), but I must say what this phone offers and its presentation are just simply great. If it was not so expensive and not first generation then I'd certainly pick one up. Maybe in another year. Ahh yes, and once it gets decent battery life, an area where Apple continues to struggle for some reason.

nutball

09-Jan-2007, 22:27

If this had built-in GPS and ran TomTom and MemoryMap I'd but one tomorrow :) (Oh and was priced at the actual £:$ rate rather than the more usual 1:1!)

Mize

09-Jan-2007, 22:33

I've seen a couple "too expensive" posts (here and elsewhere) but no pricing...what gives?

Skrying

09-Jan-2007, 22:37

I've seen a couple "too expensive" posts (here and elsewhere) but no pricing...what gives?

Eh? Its like $599 for the 8GB model and $499 for the 4GB or something around those price ranges. Very expensive if you ask me.

Zaphod

09-Jan-2007, 22:54

Eh? Its like $599 for the 8GB model and $499 for the 4GB or something around those price ranges. Very expensive if you ask me.And that's with a 2 year plan (and I doubt it will be the cheapest one)...

BTW: How much do the networks subsidize phones in the US? Here, the two biggest operators give the seller from ~$100 up to more than $300 'cashback' for a 1 year binding subscription agreement (average at roughly $200), depending on the plan and cosponsor campaigns with the manufacturers.

Skrying

09-Jan-2007, 22:56

And that's with a 2 year plan (and I doubt it will be the cheapest one)...

BTW: How much do the networks subsidize phones in the US? Here, the two biggest operators give the seller from ~$100 up to more than $300 'cashback' for a 1 year binding subscription agreement (average at roughly $200, depending on the plan and cosponsor campaigns with the manufacturers).

I count that as more of a negative. You're still paying and you're bound into the contract then also.

Zaphod

09-Jan-2007, 23:22

I count that as more of a negative. You're still paying and you're bound into the contract then also.Me too. I prefer to pay for my phones straight up, and find a plan that suits me with no contract binding. (Much) cheaper in the long run.

Was just wondering about the 'real cost' of that thing, but after a quick browse, I see that the 'money off' add up to $2-300 from Cingular after jumping through all the hoops to get the maximum rebate. Not all that much considering you're likely to spend >$1440 ('best deal') over the next two years. That makes TCO about $1000/year for the iPhone (and that's before any 'premium' services - which you're likely to use, otherwise such a phone is wasted). Not cheap. Not cheap at all.

I doubt that the iPhone will be available SIM-free anytime soon, and I get the feeling that Apple is looking to sell this with tight integration to their preferred operators to get a foothold in the market. Free (or at least with a reasonable included data transfer alloctaion) GPRS/EDGE transfers and tie-ins to the inevitable mobile iTunes music store, and so on.

Zaphod

09-Jan-2007, 23:32

QuickTime video of the full keynote (http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/j47d52oo/event/).

Edit: The servers seem to be struggling a bit at the moment so you might get an error message.

DemoCoder

10-Jan-2007, 00:55

It's not too expensive for what it does. This phone blows the doors off of the best phones that Nokia, Ericsson, LG, Samsung, and Motorola make. I've been in the mobile industry since 2001, I pretty much have access to every mobile phone you've ever heard of, and plenty of prototypes that never made it to market.

Just on user interface responsiveness alone, I'd buy this phone. One of my pet peeves is the frustringly laggy navigation on most mid range phones, be it Series 40/60/UIQ, even PocketPC/Smartphone, or BREW, the navigation, scrolling, screen updates are laggy. I can type text faster on a Series 40/60 than it can display. Anything that has to access the flash ram, like browsing a collection of photos is really slow.

The responsiveness of the UI is refreshing. The web browsing experience blows WAP and mobile Opera out of the water. The call control looks way fscking better, half the time I try and switch between mute, call waiting, and speaker on my RAZR I end up hanging someone up. None of the photo gallery apps on these phones come even close. MP3 management on these devices is a pain in the ass.

This phone clearly isn't a low-end phone like a RAZR or Series 40, and it makes Series 60/80/90 and PPC Phones look like amateurs, so it's not really fair to compare the iPhone to cheapo midrange phones. iPhone is a SmartPhone, in the smart phone market segment, and clearly it outclasses PocketPC, Palm, and Series 80/90 devices. If you're expecting all this functionality for a price the same as a RAZR, or Series 40/60 phone, you're dreaming. It friggin runs OS X for christsakes.

People said the same thing about the iPod... too expensive. Competiting MP3 players were very cheap, how the hell can Apple sell an iPod for so much money? Guess what, Apple now has 60% of the market. The reason is simple: design. The iPod is more expensive than other players, but IMHO, its UI and integration is better. Aesthetics plays a large part in these markets. You could make a hardware device, say running PocketPC Phone, that has every feature the iPhone has, multitouch, wifi, gsm+edge, 2megapixel camera, accelerometers, the whole shebang. However, without good software integration it will still suck.

Anyone who owned the first pocketpc phones/smartphones like the Motorola MPX200 will tell you the same. The "phone" functionality in these phones was *terrible* compared to ordinary phones as well as Palm phones. Why? because there was no focus on design for the user. Often, the phone platform and OS was built before they ever had a clue how the actual phone UI would work. Go look at the original Motorola MPX200 MS Smartphone *TERRIBLE* phone.

The iPod wasn't too expensive, and $499 for a smartphone isn't. Cingular was already selling $499-699 smartphones *with 2 year plans* when they were introduced. Go look at the prices for the original PocketPC Smartphones like the Toshiba one..I think the top of the line one was $799 w/contract!

A Palm Treo 750 or Cingular 8575 today costs $399 and no one can honestly claim that these devices are even 1/2 as good as the iPhone. I predict on launch, these phones will be harder to find than the PS3, and that Apple will easily make their 10million market target.

Maybe next year, they'll ship a cost reduced sku, or a iPhone "Nano", but for an introductory smartphone device, I think their price is fine.

As for battery life, almost every European smart phone has similar or less talk time. Apple claims 5 hours talk, which is good for a smartphone and average for a regular phone. All of the current Nokia and Ericsson high end phones offer 5hrs or less. 7-9hrs talk is above average for a normal phone, and unusable for a smartphone.

Personally, I'll trade off 2 hrs of talk for increased usability of the UI.

Skrying

10-Jan-2007, 00:59

That's nice, of course no one here that I saw was comparing it to a RAZR or any such crap like that from what I saw.

alt_nick

10-Jan-2007, 01:10

First thing I thought of when I read the specs and saw the pictures was the old MyOrigo (http://www.mobileburn.com/review.jsp?Id=547) prototype.
It was sexy back then and this one sure seems sexy too. Rawwrr!

Zaphod

10-Jan-2007, 01:28

It's not too expensive for what it does. This phone blows the doors off of the best phones that Nokia, Ericsson, LG, Samsung, and Motorola make.Sure, but for what particular market segment does that matter?

Europeans don’t (well, mostly) buy phones like the N73 by the bucketload particularly because they're smartphones, but rather because you virtually get them thrown after you in the street with high incentives to switch providers. Yet, it has 'full internet', 'visual messaging', 'videoconferencing', or whatever Apple seems to claim they've just invented. For office use, the Symbian platform is software expandable for almost any use, and as an entertainment device a cheap 2GB memory card will fill almost any music or video need. Games are plentiful. The N95 will be out more than half a year before it - at the same or lesser cost, contract free - and I don't see much that the iPhone will definitely do heads and shoulders better.

The standout feature is the UI, and frankly I have my doubts as to how well that will be received over here, where messaging is virtually a way of life (damn did he ever type slowly on that thing). I also wonder: What the intended market is for this? I doubt that work would buy me one, it's too expensive for kids and youth, and we still don't know enough about other typical business features.

It's a gadget. Granted, a damned cool one, but still a gadget. I want one, but much the same way I want a Ferrari, I wouldn’t get one (even if I could afford it).

DemoCoder

10-Jan-2007, 01:49

Yet, it has 'full internet', 'visual messaging', 'videoconferencing', or whatever Apple seems to claim they've just invented. For office use, the Symbian platform is software expandable for almost any use, and as an entertainment device a cheap 2GB memory card will fill almost any music or video need. Games are plentiful. The N95 will be out more than half a year before it - at the same or lesser cost, contract free - and I don't see much that the iPhone will definitely do heads and shoulders better.

Please. The internet browser experience in these phones is terrible. The UI stinks. The N73 doesn't have a keyboard nor WiFi, and only someone ignorant would think that the music, tv, and video experience on an N73 would be comparable to an iPhone. The N95 has WiFi, but still a shoddy user input system. Neither have touchscreen, nor stylus, nor keyboard. Same old shitty T9 system.

Maybe you should look at the video of the iPhone web browser before you leap to conclusions.

As the iPhone has a y-axis accelerometer - can you say *driving games* :) Can you say "Nintendo DS" style games? :)

The standout feature is the UI, and frankly I have my doubts as to how well that will be received over here, where messaging is virtually a way of life (damn did he ever type slowly on that thing). I also wonder: What the intended market is for this? I doubt that work would buy me one, it's too expensive for kids and youth, and we still don't know enough about other typical business features.

Well, they're about to sell their 100million iPod. Maybe Europeans are too poor to buy them, but someone is. And the reason their buying them is because the music experience of current phones suck. Phones have been able to playback MP3 since atleast 2000, and yet it hasn't arrested the music player market - hmm, I wonder why.

As for communications. Well, maybe you'll settle for SMS and T9, but frankly, I prefer BlackBerry and keyboard entry. That said, the SMS client software in iPhone looks better than what you'll get in Series 60.

It's a gadget. Granted, a damned cool one, but still a gadget. I want one, but much the same way I want a Ferrari, I wouldn’t get one (even if I could afford it).

Well, a Ferrari is better than a Honda Civic isn't it, which is exactly what the N73 is. You're just mad cause you can't afford it. That doesn't mean it's not better than those devices. The only thing the N95 will have that is better than the iPhone is 3G/4G wireless and a slightly better camera, on the other hand, I think 3G/4G wireless is pretty pointless at this point given the coverage, cost, and ubiquity of WiFi hotspots, and upcoming WiMAX.

DemoCoder

10-Jan-2007, 02:04

That's nice, of course no one here that I saw was comparing it to a RAZR or any such crap like that from what I saw.

I was comparing it to crap like the N73. You know, a phone with no keyboard, no WiFi, no touch screen, no high res LCD screen, piss poor photo management, crappy music management, shitty Symbian OS (don't get me started), crappy browser, ludicrously bad email client...

I feel sorry for the people who have to use these overpriced phones for anything other than phone and SMS, and even then, I feel sorry for people who are forced into crummy T9 and multitap in order to communicate. Of course, cognitive dissonance will have long convinced many that the effort and time spent mastering T9 is not a bug, but a feature.

The Nseries simply is not user friendly, period.

My only concern for Apple's touch type is errors from pressing "inbetween" keys, but apparently, it uses predictive feedback to inform the touch input, so that if you press halfway between a D and an X, it will choose a D if it is the most probable next letter, which IMHO is a far nicer and sublime usage of text statistics.

On the other hand, for everything else, navigation looks far easier, far more snappy, especially browsing, where viewing entire web pages, zooming, and clicking is far far easier than on hamstrung devices.

And what was demoed of the email client absolutely destroys the Nokia mail client, even on top end enterprise phones like the communicator.

Graham

10-Jan-2007, 02:07

The iphone certainly looks very nice, but looking at it with PR reflective googles the machine isn't quite the '5 years ahead of its time' device they claim it is...

Ok I'll put on the cynics cap for a moment:

I'm really not a fan of Apples outward lack of respect for their competition. In that report they go on and on about how inferior every other input method is.. And well thats fine, but they work. And thats ignoring what the competition is doing, LG have a phone (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/lg-ke850-sports-a-touchscreen-interface-222110.php) coming which not only looks near identical to this iphone, but looks smaller too - not to mention it'll probably be cheaper and have better specs (from what I can tell it's a similar resolution for a start). Let alone phones you can already buy, like the nokia 770 (http://europe.nokia.com/A4145104), sure it's not sleek and all, but similar sized screen but with a much higher resolution. No doubt there will be many phones this year with similar specs.

Nokia have shown how badly a desktop web browser can work on a phone with their E series. To claim that Safari on a mobile is a giant leap forward is a bit much, especially with the likes of Opera mobile around. I think there is a reason they showed NYT.. Given it doesn't have wide areas of text.. you know, like most websites. There wasn't any obvious page re-layout shown, just zoomed out interpolated - which is about as useless as you can get. Showing the likes of google maps also isn't exactly an amazing thing. Cellphone based map applications have been around for ages.

I'm concerned about lack of tactile feedback from a display. It will be difficult to use the device without looking at it.. This applies to all touch phones though.

I'm sitting here with my 4 year old pocket PC.. - which I paid $300nz for 3 years ago - I can't help think this isn't the amazing revolution it claims to be. If I stuck a decent sized CF card in it, the only significant technical differences would be a near VGA screen + cellphone capability. Something other models already do anyway. Heck it's only 1mm thicker - and thats because of the CF slot. It also doesn't help I don't bother using my PDA anymore, because the basic features in my cheap and nasty cellphone are more than adequate. Plus it's a damn sight smaller too.

DemoCoder

10-Jan-2007, 02:30

I bought a RAZR because after years of terrible smartphone and PDA experiences, I got tired of sticking bulky phones in my pocket and decided to just get the smallest one I could. Hell, I'd even settle for a phone with NO UI, just a bluetooth headset, and perhaps stick the phone in a watch or a beltbuckle.

However, there is a reason why I feel like this and that's because the smartphones sucked. I've carried about 20 different PocketPCs, I get free access to practically every phone on the market because of my job. None of them have been satisfactory. Steve was absolutely right in the keynote. I hardly ever use my address book, I use my recent calls, because most of the address book apps in phones are a pain to use.

However, I am pleased with my iPod, and you're talking to a former *Apple hater* Sure, Stevenotes are full of exaggerations, and for years I didn't "get" the iPod. I mean, mp3 players were around long before, and it's just a bulky expensive mp3 player right? Well, it turns out, there is something to UI design, something you often can't put into words. I found Apple's interface better than most of the interfaces in competiting devices, and hence, I became a convert.

Sure, you can pick and choose other phones and find similarities, but it's about the total package. So the LG phone has a touchscreen. Well, I've had plenty of PPC Phones that had touchscreen dialing. But that's not really what Apple demoed was it. The question isn't, does X have a touchscreen numeric keypad, it's does X have a UI designed consistently around a multitouch sensor. Even something simple like going into apps while on a PPC phone talking, and then going back to the phone, is not well integrated. If you're in Pocket IE, for example, does it display some indication that you're talking to John Smith at the top? No.

Hardware Specs do not tell the whole story. Software is a huge component, and having WiFi or 3G data in a phone is practically useless if the screen, keyboard, and UI is so awkward is terrible that you are disinclined to use it, which is precisely what has happened in every WiFi/3G phone I've ever had. The most common case is I'll boot up my notebook and connect through Bluetooth to browse, because the phone experience is so terrible.

As for showing wide text. 1) iPhone has a much higher rez screen than your typical Series 60/80/90 typical device with Opera, so even small text is more readable. Secondly, OS X zooming and antialiasing makes blowing up text much simpler than Opera's "lets bump the fontsize by 1". Third, Apple has implemented a slick feature for quickly zooming and scrolling amongst texture. It looks to me that when you double click on a browser element, mobile Safari walks up the DOM tree to find the closest matching DOM element with a clientWidth/height that matches the screen window dimensions. Thus, Safari "autozooms", couple that with very fluid scrolling with your finger as opposed to using a joystick on a phone with laggy visual update, and I am willing to bet money that the browsing expensive, even on a wide website will be better than Opera.

Fact is, most websites use a 2-column or 3-column layout, and the "body" paragraphs can easily be rendered with whatever width you want unless someone made a stupid site that did not allow browsers to resize the main content (typical table or CSS layout is to fix the left/right columns and allow the middle to vary). That means double clicking on say, a blog body in Safari should allow it to maximize the paragraph, and in landscape mode, this should be quite readable.

No matter how you slice it, I fail to see how one can compare the existing phones to this. I've been searching for phone nirvana for a long time, and I've used practically every phone you can name, and they've all annoyed me to the point that I gave up and bought a phone that I use for phone only and nothing else. I resigned to own separate devices for mobile media and email/browsing.

About the only hope I had was an OQO would come out with GSM card, and I'd use a BT headset to make it into a phone. Under no circumstances does any PPC or Nokia phone currently on the market come close to this, and I have an existing business relationship with Nokia and an affinity for the company, but sadly they've dropped the ball over and over on innovation.

Zaphod

10-Jan-2007, 02:31

Please. The internet browser experience in these phones is terrible. The UI stinks.Two words: Opera Mobile.
The N73 doesn't have a keyboardI'm not so sure an OSD keyboard will be an advantage. When it comes to phones, people ar very quick to dismiss what they're not used to.
nor WiFiAnd the iPhone lacks UMTS, so that's a draw then?
and only someone ignorant would think that the music, tv, and video experience on an N73 would be comparable to an iPhone.Who said it was? I sure didn't. I said the N73 is a rather decent entertainment device. It is.
Same old shitty T9 system.Personally, I find T9 works pretty well. Others have tried (and failed miserably) to intruduce alternative styles of input. If anyone could succeed here, it's Apple, but looking at that presentation, I'm not convinced.
Maybe you should look at the video of the iPhone web browser before you leap to conclusions.I did, but didn't see much Opera hasn't done for years already.
As the iPhone has a y-axis accelerometer - can you say *driving games* :)Driving games. However, software availability is a total unknown at this point.
Phones have been able to playback MP3 since atleast 2000, and yet it hasn't arrested the music player market - hmm, I wonder why.Style and peer-pressure, first and foremost. For years, the iPod wasn't the best MP3-players by far. Second, that the phone manufacturers thought they could cash in on acceccories, thus not making their phones capable music players OOTB. Third, mindshere; due to the first two points. And finally, that they (used to) suck.
As for communications. Well, maybe you'll settle for SMS and T9, but frankly, I prefer BlackBerry and keyboard entry.Not me in particular, the undefined 'they'. Personally, I use Profimail, and T9 suits me for the kind of messaging I do on the road. Those I know who need more carry ultraportables, PDAs, or Windows Mobile devices. Those who buy iPods en masse, however, send lewd MMSs images to their boyfriends and SMS their girlfriends on where to meet for latte.
Well, a Ferrari is better than a Honda Civic isn't it, which is exactly what the N73 is. You're just mad cause you can't afford it. That doesn't mean it's not better than those devices.You misunderstood. I can't afford a Ferrari, that's true, but even if the iPhone was available to me tomorrow, I wouldn't buy it. I want a lot of things that I *can* afford, but don't buy because I know that's just my inner geek speaking to me. I spent almost ten years filling my drawers with various electronics, so nowadays I don't buy stuff I want, I buy stuff I need.

Now, I know, I'm not the average consumer, and I doubt very much that you are too. You made some good points about the virtues of the iPhone (of which I mostly agree, it's pretty damned neat). But, tell me again: Who are going to buy these things? With all the unknowns - least of which is how good the iPhone is as (gasp) a phone - to whom do the iPhone market itself? For what particular usage pattern is the iPhone the phone to get?

Zaphod

10-Jan-2007, 03:17

Some more (not so good) notes from Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/the-iphone-is-not-a-smartphone/):
Noted analyst and Engadget pal Michael Gartenberg stated that the iPhone is first party software ONLY -- i.e. not a smartphone by conventional terms, being that a smartphone is a platform device that allows software to be installed. That means hungry power-users -- you know, those people ready and willing to plunk down $600 for an 8GB musicphone -- won't be able to extend the functionality of their phone any more than Apple (but thankfully not Cingular) dictates. Other unfortunate realities about the device:

[...]
* No over the air iTunes Store downloads or WiFi syncing to your host machine.
[...]
* No removable battery.
* No Exchange or Office support.Ouch. Several dealbreakers there. Typical business use is out, the wireless feature I expected to be prominent isn't there at all, and a fixed battery (?!), what on earth have they been smoking? If iPod battery quality is anything to go by and people actually use the power-hungry stuff like multimedia and Wi-Fi, the phone will be useless long before the two year contract is up.

Skrying

10-Jan-2007, 03:35

Ahh, its a mediaphone then.

DemoCoder

10-Jan-2007, 03:48

Some more (not so good) notes from Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/the-iphone-is-not-a-smartphone/):
Ouch. Several dealbreakers there. Typical business use is out, the wireless feature I expected to be prominent isn't there at all, and a fixed battery (?!), what on earth have they been smoking? If iPod battery quality is anything to go by and people actually use the power-hungry stuff like multimedia and Wi-Fi, the phone will be useless long before the two year contract is up.

1. Many phones have locked down install, or require digitially signed carrier apps.
2. When J2ME was first launched, OTA install wasn't possible. Symbian nor BREW supported OTA install originally.
3. Apple will obviously code sign and control initial app distribution.
4. Exchange is irrelevent. IMAP is the standard. If you deploy exchange without IMAP, you're an idiot. if your an enterprise and you run Exchange, you're an idiot. However, even if you were so stupid, many companies sell Exchange plugins to work around this, my company an adapter which converts Exchange to SyncML and IMAP for push sync/push mail.

I mean, let's get real. 99% of business users do not have Exchange capable/ActiveSync phones. They don't even have POP/IMAP either. They use the Exchange WAP gateway. Those who are smarter run Blackberry Enterprise Server and require employees to have Crackberry capable devices. Don't even talk to me about patterns of business use on these devices, I've spent the last six years on mobile mail, and I sit on several global standards working groups for mobile mail, in addition to being responsible for a product that provides Exchange/IMAP/POP to older handsets.

Why don't you try and integrate an IMAP app with the native Symbian mail store and tell me how well that works out.

Zaphod

10-Jan-2007, 04:15

Why don't you try and integrate an IMAP app with the native Symbian mail store and tell me how well that works out.I wouldn't. What little Symbian development I've trided, I gave up quick because the SDK was a mess (early S60v2; also, I'm not all that good). Considered giving the new Python stuff a spin though, as that looks promising, but I haven't found the time.

All your point are valid, but they're also points that 'people' don't care about, and most admins just want to be spared any hassle. On the OTA front, I was thinking more about 'instant iTunes'. Some new Samsungs have a 'record and recognize' feature hat is pretty neat, and something like that coupled with instant gratification music purchases would have been a great feature. For business use, Exchange isn't a biggie, but a lack of readers for PDF/Office is. Also, apps like VPN might (if we grant Apple a 'maybe' instead of a 'not' on the expandability front) be a dealbreaker. Using a fixed battery, however, is just plain retarded.

From a European perspective, I still can't see what market this phone will find. Those who can't live without the ability to send email while on the phone?

DemoCoder

10-Jan-2007, 04:44

Fixed batteries do have advantages however in terms of cost and life, and they aren't so much fixed as "need to take into Apple store and have them swapped". How many people change their car batteries themselves these days, or their tires for that matter?

If the battery died after a few months, it might be an issue, but if it lasts 2years, it won't be.

If it runs OS X embedded, it will most likely support VPN. I mean, the fricken thing has Cocoa and Core Animation, so I hightly doubt they left out VPN. This OS doesn't look anywhere near as cut down and decimated as the first PocketPC OSes. Remember PocketIE, which was a bastardized monstrousity of a codebase, a buggy IE3.0 merged with 5.0 COM components?

Symbian is a terrible OS to develop for, and there are political and IP restrictions that even prevent hooking into some OS layers even for a top ten software company. My point was to emphasize that the Nokia "platform" sucks terribly, and from a user experience point of view, it cannot compete.

The OTA/third party issue is a smoke screen. Without a doubt, Apple will allow third party development, they just want to ensure that the DRM can't be attacked. I predict they will allow Javascript and Java

Zaphod

10-Jan-2007, 05:30

Fixed batteries do have advantages however in terms of cost and life, and they aren't so much fixed as "need to take into Apple store and have them swapped". [...] If the battery died after a few months, it might be an issue, but if it lasts 2years, it won't be.
If their track record for iPod batteries and service strategy is anything to go by this could be a major hassle for users. Still an unknown, though, but a strong negative regardless.
How many people change their car batteries themselves these days, or their tires for that matter?Now, that's a rubbish analogy. How many people expect to be able to swap their cellphone battery? All of them, that's how many.
My point was to emphasize that the Nokia "platform" sucks terribly, and from a user experience point of view, it cannot compete.Definitely the best thing going for the iPhone, but I suspect that ingrained suppositions about what a phone is ‘supposed’ to be like could work against them. It’ll have to be pretty effortless to pick up their UI for this not to be a factor. Hell, I even saw a study the other day said that brand loyalty in the mobile space was more about familiarity than about ‘brand’ or features. Being so different – even if it’s better – might be to much to overcome. Old habits and all that…

DemoCoder

10-Jan-2007, 07:16

If their track record for iPod batteries and service strategy is anything to go by this could be a major hassle for users. Still an unknown, though, but a strong negative regardless.
Now, that's a rubbish analogy. How many people expect to be able to swap their cellphone battery? All of them, that's how many.

I have NEVER had to buy a new mobile battery, EVER. I've bought new phones before my batteries died. I've bought simcards that died before my batteries died. I've never had an iPod battery died on me either, I guess I'm must lucky.

I really don't see what is so confusing to people. Apple is looking to get 1% marketshare. The cream of the crop of users, big spenders for high end devices, the same people who buy MacBooks, who buy video iPods, etc.

Apple has sold 100 million "expensive" iPods, and even if they were able to sell ONLY to existing Apple loyalists and iPod customers, they won't have a problem meeting their targets. I predict they'll hit their numbers from mere iPod upgraders alone, not new people switching from non-Apple CE stuff.

Their phone isn't any more price than other top smartphone PDAs, I might add, many of which don't have replacable batteries either. Tons of PocketPC devices sold had integrated batteries too.

I put alot more faith in Apple's ability to gauge their target audience than in the armchair analysts here. Apple has survived and thrived from onslaughts of cheap competitors, all the while still offering more pricey HW. I also think Europeans have a completely different perspective, since a) they tend to have less disposable income and pay higher prices/consumption taxes and are more sensitive and b) are stuck in the SMS network carrier mindset due to legacy GSM and SMS.

Network operators are basically nasty companies, operating on a business model that is obsolete, and have essentially avoided net-neutrality and commodification by building artificial barriers around their networks. For example, they frown on IMAP because they don't want users to connect to ISPs treating them as mere bandwidth bitpipes. They do not want to be in the business of simply providing data carriage, they want to be a gatekeeper and charge for services. For example, OMA which represents industry interests has time and time againsty tried to force the IETF to alter IMAP to permit an insecure operator proxy model so that every IMAP command is forced through the network operator so that they may be able to charge per message FETCH executed, or charge per SMTP message sent. They do not want to only see TCP packets and have to charge by payload size only.

Why am I mentioning this? Because SMS was supposed to be killed off a long time ago. The OMA basically agreed to do it and replace it with a more open model, but when it became clear that SIP, SIMPLE, XMPP, et al, were a large threat to their business models from third party operators, they went full bore into hacks ontop of SMS signalling, so we got a bazillion new SMS payload extensions instead. SMS is fine as a out of band signalling channel, but the SMS interface to the user is just stupid.

The US doesn't have the SMS legacy, we only got it in the last few years, and it's expensive to use (example: both sender and receiver pay). Thus, saying "we don't need stuff like Blackberry, we've got SMS and we're happy with it" is like saying "we don't need stuff like the Web, we've got MINITEL and we're happy with it" Businesses here are not dependent on SMS business models. Instead, they tried to do mobile services ontop of WAP (which sucked ass)...

But as was pointed out by many following WAP, it was already irrelevent and stupid when it was born. Once devices are powerful enough to run TCP/IP, WiFi, and a real browser and chat client, with SIP-like signalling, one doesn't need SMS except for cheap power efficient out of band signalling, and one doesn't need the network operator to be the gatekeeper for services.

TCP/IP, SIP signalling, VoIP, and dual-mode WiFi/WiMax represent user freedom. GSM, albeit a nice interrim solution, represents the past, a circuit switched propriety operator hellhole, that future devices are going to leap frog over. The European governments and carriers are going to left scratching their heads when this happens, as they get squeezed out of proprietary closed network game, while Korean and Chinese handset manufacturers squeeze out some of their more popular home grown industries.

Graham

10-Jan-2007, 07:23

No matter how you slice it, I fail to see how one can compare the existing phones to this. I've been searching for phone nirvana for a long time, and I've used practically every phone you can name, and they've all annoyed me to the point that I gave up and bought a phone that I use for phone only and nothing else. I resigned to own separate devices for mobile media and email/browsing.

Well I don't really see how by being apple suddenly all the existing problems with, say, text entry with an on screen keyboard are solved. Afterall the screen is slightly thinner than the average PDA, and it's hard enough on a 4" screen as it is. Mainly for lack of tactile feedback.

I personally use a nokia 6820, which I really cannot fault. I guess it isn't exactly thin, but otherwise it's a good size - and thickness doesn't bother me like width.

At the end of the day, I need a phone with a good calendar and useable contact lists. I don't need to view my photos, I don't care for music playback..

DemoCoder

10-Jan-2007, 07:33

Well I don't really see how by being apple suddenly all the existing problems with, say, text entry with an on screen keyboard are solved. Afterall the screen is slightly thinner than the average PDA, and it's hard enough on a 4" screen as it is. Mainly for lack of tactile feedback.

First of all, the screen isn't designed for stylus touch, and it isn't a single-touch screen, it's multitouch. Secondly, the software is more intelligent because it doesn't just try to interpret a touch as a "click" at x,y on a gui widget, rather, it uses the context of the touch to guess statistically what was intended.

Like I said, tell me a existing PDA touch screen that was invented to not break down if you touch 2 spots at the same time, as well as one that used a statistical model to interpret the touch, as opposed to the simplistic "let's make the touchscreen a mouse driver and just interpret a touch as a click", ala Windows CE.

Your statement is like saying "well, I used pen input in 2000, or on the Apple Newton, so how can it be any better today" The buttons on the iPhone are in general bigger than the ones on a typical flip phone too, especially in landscape.

I personally use a nokia 6820, which I really cannot fault. I guess it isn't exactly thin, but otherwise it's a good size - and thickness doesn't bother me like width.

Yeah, but Series 40 is terrible, and the browser, come on. Yeah, a fullsized keyboard is nice, unfortunately the rest of the phone sucks.

At the end of the day, I need a phone with a good calendar and useable contact lists. I don't need to view my photos, I don't care for music playback..

Well, "good calendar" for me means something like iCal or Google Calendar. The Series 40 and 60 calender apps are seriously lacking.

Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

10-Jan-2007, 13:14

Does it have voice recognition for text entry? I'd have thought a device as powerful as this and as forward looking might actually try to do VR right.

DemoCoder

10-Jan-2007, 13:31

VR with a restricted grammar is easy. Arbitrary VR dictation is very hard. Even human beings have problems achieving perfect accuracy, and they have an immense advantage in being able to use semantics and conetext as a method to resolve ambiguities instead of just syntax. Any VR dictation solution that doesn't involve AI will require at minimum lip-reading in combination to get accuracies to expected levels.

_xxx_

10-Jan-2007, 14:54

I've been searching for phone nirvana for a long time, and I've used practically every phone you can name, and they've all annoyed me to the point that I gave up and bought a phone that I use for phone only and nothing else. I resigned to own separate devices for mobile media and email/browsing.

Exactly the way it should be IMO. I'd like to be able to buy a slick, small phone which does only phoning and text messaging and nothing else.

This iPhone thingy is nice and all, but it's effectively a PDA with added phone functionality. I, like many other people, prefer separate devices. And all of them as small as possible, please. Just imagine running around all day with this bulky thing in your jeans pocket, horrible.

nAo

10-Jan-2007, 15:27

This iPhone thingy is nice and all, but it's effectively a PDA with added phone functionality. I, like many other people, prefer separate devices. And all of them as small as possible, please. Just imagine running around all day with this bulky thing in your jeans pocket, horrible.
Your separate device is one additional touch away from you when you start to use the iPhone, from what I got watching its presentation you really switch from 4 different applications just touching an icon. I think Apple was very aware of this problem (and I have a couple of friend that have actually bought a separate device just to beused as a phone)

_xxx_

10-Jan-2007, 15:31

That's not the point, my main problem is the size. I want a phone I can carry in my jeans while not looking like I had two sets of balls, if you know what I mean.

Half the size of the Razr V3 would be ideal.

I want a phone I can carry in my jeans while not looking like I had two sets of balls

Hmm, looks like a have a new sig here :twisted:

nAo

10-Jan-2007, 15:52

That's not the point, my main problem is the size. I want a phone I can carry in my jeans while not looking like I had two sets of balls, if you know what I mean.

Half the size of the Razr V3 would be ideal.

Hmm, looks like a have a new sig here :twisted:
LOL :) Anyway..I feel your concerns will be addressed with the second generation of iPhones :)

Graham

10-Jan-2007, 18:14

Well...

When you use more than one finger on a normal PPC, it simply takes the average of the two positions and calls it a day. Probably because there really isn't any non gimmicky way to interpret to points of input. Sure the zooming was all flash and nice, but was only useful in the photo viewer, and that was really just a gimmick. Thats at least is my view.
They all do the same thing. The screen sees a blob of input, you take either the average centre or greatest area of coverage and call that the pressed button. The only difference I could see here is if their screen was pressure sensitive. He made the odd error in the keynote, and you'd notice he was careful to explain any potential errors before using the keyboard. Heck I get great accuracy on my pda with my finger, on a bigger screen. The problem isn't accuracy, it's the lack of feedback - and the fact it's just too damn small - you have to pay very close attention to what you are doing. This new screen doesn't solve either, and is even thinner than average. I can type without looking at my current phone, something thats damn well impossible on any touch screen.

I'm sorry but if a company tells me their product is 5 years ahead of anything else on the planet, well, either they show something that is out of this world, or frankly I call it crap. It's a NZ affliction I guess. Hardware wise there are some nice gimmicks going on, and software wise it looks to be the best integrated platform so far, but thats more like 6-12 months ahead of the curve to me. But beyond that it's going to look average in a year when it arrives here for probably $2000, let alone in 5 years. Therefore I'll pick holes in it, and can't help being cynical.

I feel people are setting themselves up for dissapointment. I'd rather set myself up to be impressed.

Mize

10-Jan-2007, 21:23

DemoCoder

10-Jan-2007, 23:47

Well, you're an atypical user. Vast majority of PocketPC and PocketPC phones didn't start with swappable batteries. A user swappable battery would compromise the exterior case design and internal layout of the phone. The iPhone has the same ports are the iPod and there is an entire universe of iPod accessories, including external batteries for emergencies and portable quickchargers.

This is why the iPod is not "just an mp3" player because when you buy an iPod you're buying into an ecosystem, and the ecosystem of iPod oriented accessories blows away every other mp3 player.

The vast majority of phone users, even power enterprise users, do not have two batteries for their phone. Two notebook batteries - yes, and the number 1 reason for that is air travel.

So maybe if kills it for you, but Apple can't please everyone. A swappable battery would mean a larger case, less room for internal electronics, a compromised exterior design, yet another piece of ergonomics that can go wrong. That sucker is already packed tight internally, and the battery is probably friggin huge, so providing a compartment would have an effect on internal tolerances.

Skrying

11-Jan-2007, 01:14

DemoCoder

11-Jan-2007, 02:12

Well...

When you use more than one finger on a normal PPC, it simply takes the average of the two positions and calls it a day. Probably because there really isn't any non gimmicky way to interpret to points of input. Sure the zooming was all flash and nice, but was only useful in the photo viewer, and that was really just a gimmick. Thats at least is my view.

No, normal PPC resistive touchscreens, simply do not handle multiple touches properly. The OS software cannot accurately get the coordinates of two separate touches from the sensor. Real multitouch is WAY different. It is not an issue of "non gimmicky way to interpret two points of input", it is an issue of the limitation of the input device.

Do you think This is a friggen gimmick!? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379146923853181774)

Only useful in the photo viewer? Umm, it was damn useful in the browser view too. The smaller the screen, the much important ZUI (Zoomable User Interface) is.

They all do the same thing. The screen sees a blob of input, you take either the average centre or greatest area of coverage and call that the pressed button.

No, they do not all do the same thing. You clearly don't know how touch screens work, and how multitouch screens differ. Moreover, you most certainly don't have to take the average center or area of greatest coverage. With text entry, one would desire instead to use a predictive model. If I fudge finger and hit S, Z, and X at the same time, even if more coverage is on the X key, I may have intended the 'S' key, which could be predicted from prior text with great accuracy. It's T9 on steroids.

Likewise, if I accidently touch multiple places on the screen, the UI can clearly ignore accidental multitouch based on context, which your garden variety PPC touch sensor CANNOT DO.

DemoCoder

11-Jan-2007, 02:47

Seriously, stop comparing the iPhone (if they get to keep that name...) to the start of PocketPC/SmartPhones. Many current (and therefore relative) smartphones allow you to swap the battery. I would imagine for a device that is most likely catered towards the power user (who uses the device more than your average user) would be more than likely to drain a battery out on a really busy day. What are they suppose to do?

Please, I'm a power user, and I'm on multihour conference calls all the time with my phone which I leave on speaker as I work. I never drain the battery, even leaving on BT. If for some reason, I couldn't plug in my phone somewhere (and the iPhone can be charged on both power outlets AND on any USB connection), I'd carry an external battery around, which is what you'd have to do anyway if you were carrying a second battery. Either you carry it all the time, or you don't, otherwise the argument is "I forgot to charge my battery in the morning and found my phone dead, but I had another battery sitting on the shelf"

The fact is, 99% of the time, it's far more convenient to plug a phone in and keep talking than to swap a battery which requires rebooting the phone. The types of scenarios where you blown 4 hours of talk time, but can't charge, are circumstances where you're in an airport or on the street, and typically you erroneously forgot to switch off the phone in poor signal reception circumstances, which massively drains the battery. But again, your screwed unless you plan ahead and carry your backup batteries.

When I travel, I take travel chargers and emergency power. When I drive, I have a car charger (as well as emergency car battery in the trunk). But the vast majority of the time, if my phone gets low on battery, I plug it in. For Americans, we spend tons of time in cars which are easily to charge from too.

Also, an ecosystem? Give me a break, I have no seen a actually useful accessory to the iPod yet. Most just simply make up for functionality that other players come built with.

Car docks with FM transmitters (I recently used one so my son could listen to his favorite music on an 8 hr drive) Media center docks. Speaker docks. iPod clothing that integrates player controls (my favorite, the iPod ski-jacket). There are tons. There are simply far more ergonomic and style options for people to put their iPods than their iRivers, Zunes, Zens, SanDisks, and other minority devices.

If you don't get it, you never will. Like you, I used to be an Apple basher. Overpriced HW that does the same thing or less as el cheapo players I can get from China. Apple users, non-technical fuzzy headed artist types who are clueless drones, right? That was until I actually started using them. It took me exactly 45 seconds at CES '06 hands on to see critical flaws in the iRiver UI for example. Annoyances that simply interfere with enjoyment of the device.

I've owned tons of MP3 playback devices, none of them got much use after the initial week. Not so for the iPod.

Skrying

11-Jan-2007, 03:11

Car docks with FM transmitters (I recently used one so my son could listen to his favorite music on an 8 hr drive) Media center docks. Speaker docks. iPod clothing that integrates player controls (my favorite, the iPod ski-jacket). There are tons. There are simply far more ergonomic and style options for people to put their iPods than their iRivers, Zunes, Zens, SanDisks, and other minority devices.

If you don't get it, you never will. Like you, I used to be an Apple basher. Overpriced HW that does the same thing or less as el cheapo players I can get from China. Apple users, non-technical fuzzy headed artist types who are clueless drones, right? That was until I actually started using them. It took me exactly 45 seconds at CES '06 hands on to see critical flaws in the iRiver UI for example. Annoyances that simply interfere with enjoyment of the device.

I've owned tons of MP3 playback devices, none of them got much use after the initial week. Not so for the iPod.

FM transmitters? Used one with my old Creative Zen Touch. Speaker and media docks? I believe those work with Creative's new players also. Clothing? I'll try refraining from laughing there. Maybe there's a bonus there, though you're right in that I do not see it. I simply do not mind spending two more seconds using the actual unit to skip a track. I also enjoy how you poke at "el cheapo" other players. That's simply placing the iPod as some unit that isn't made in the same type of conditions as others, the fact is that Apple has been holding up the price of the iPod forever because they could demand that price, and with the recent price drop its clear that its not some shining piece of equipment that is made extremely better than other players.

I'm sorry you've had problems with other devices in the past. I am glad you've found faith in Apple products. There's simply issues with the iPod that keep me away from it. I'll go on using other inferior products though.

RussSchultz

11-Jan-2007, 04:54

The AppleTV thing looks entirely uncompelling.

Until it can play DVD .ISO files streamed from a NAS, I don't want it.

DemoCoder

11-Jan-2007, 06:27

The AppleTV thing looks entirely uncompelling.

Until it can play DVD .ISO files streamed from a NAS, I don't want it.

I wouldn't even buy something that did that, since I already have it on my homebrew solution. I don't want a home distribution system that can't match the experience of a HDDVD or BRD on a TV. So, iTV is out, because you don't get DVD extras nor hi-def (480p encoding apparently), and DVD streaming, thanks but no thanks, all my future purchases are HD, and again, I don't want something that drops all of the nice features of an HDDVD or BRD player, and costs about the same, otherwise, I'd prefer to just buy a future $399 hi-def optical player and put it in different rooms, and just use physical discs.

iTV is not really for videophiles, but for people who already bought a whole bunch of iTunes content for their iPods. I have bought TV show episodes that I missed Tivoing but are not out on DVD yet, but I would never buy a movie on iTunes, even if they offered HD quality.

DemoCoder

11-Jan-2007, 06:39

FM transmitters? Used one with my old Creative Zen Touch.

Oh wow, you found one eh. I can buy 2 dozen different kinds. For years, PC enthusiasts cited the advantages of the PC ecosystem, where I can buy so many different peripherals vs the Mac where your peripheral choices are fewer. I can only buy one or two flavors of a Radeon X1900, but on the PC you can buy dozens. Did the PC enthusiasts accept the fact that the Mac users could get the HW they needed, they just didn't have as many brand name variations and OEM bundles? Not really.

Now that the situation is different with respect to music players, that the iPod has far far more choices available for it, a much larger market that far dwarfs anythign else, suddenly the ability to have so many choices is downplayed. Oh, right, no peripherals worth buying, except maybe the few choices you could get for the Zen.

You're simply too stubborn to admit the benefits of Metcalf's law, of the network effect. The iPod is so popular, car manufacturers are making provisions for it, with *dealer installed* iPod options. You don't even need aftermarket solutions (which are still more plentiful than Creative)

The more people who own iPods, the bigger the market will be, the more choices.

Mortimer

11-Jan-2007, 12:23

I find it frightening that the "oh so rational" old DemoCoder now buys every lie that comes out of Steves mouth.

That thing is no smartphone, it's a mediaphone. No third party apps, no real installable apps even. You get gadgets, that's all. It might be the best (most likely is) at that, but it's no competition to the "real" smartphones with lots of apps. (word & excel document support?)

Yeah it's sexy looking (like Dell Axim x50(/1) without the buttons) but how do you know it has better usability than "normal" phones? There has been touchscreens for ever (blahblah mutltitouch) and they suck for input. It's nice for pointing stuff out of a list but I find it nice to search the person from a list by initial than to scroll through hundred names (some might have a lot more).

That "pinch" for zooming seemed really nice, but that's it as far as I'm conserned about the really cool things about the usability.

And all the demos were done over wifi, so don't expect it to be that fast in websurfing over EDGE.

And lastly comes the killer.
What do you think the screen looks like in a year?
Or after some lady presses it to her cheeck that has lots of makeup?

Mize

11-Jan-2007, 12:46

And a Lancer Evolution is faster than a BMW 750...doesn't mean the fit, finish and handling of the BMW aren't more satisfying.

RussSchultz

11-Jan-2007, 13:00

DemoCoder

11-Jan-2007, 13:05

I find it frightening that the "oh so rational" old DemoCoder now buys every lie that comes out of Steves mouth.

And you seem to buy every single lie read on the web. Apple has not announced anything official about third party development, period. All of this is hearsay from one guy's blog who says he talked to some booth guy/gal about it. Speculation over Gadgets is that, speculation.

Apple would not build an embedded OS X into the phone if they didn't intend to provide third party development. You want to speculate? How about XCode support for iPhone development released to developers at the next WWDC.

You can't accuse me of buying into bullshit when one of the central tenets of your message is based on an assertion with no official corporate confirmation.

And all the demos were done over wifi, so don't expect it to be that fast in websurfing over EDGE.

I've already got a UMTS phone. I never websurf over it. It's too expensive and the browser sucks. I'll take WiFi + Mobile Safari over Opera Mobile + expensive 3G anyday. What use is having UMTS/EVDO in my phone when browsing is TERRIBLE, clicking on links and entering urls a pain. Both PocketIE and Opera Mobile suck ass.

I mean, are you friggin blind? Why don't you spent 10 minutes surfing with Opera Mobile on the most powerful smartphones you can get, and then tell me it looked as fast and smooth as the Safari browsing show on iPhone. I'm not talking about loading over the net I'm talking page scrolling and zooming.

OS X's display layer renders PDF. It's integral. So the idea that it can't atleast display PDF and Word docs is idiotic. At the very least, iTunes could trivially sync Word .DOC and .RTF docs, since converters to PDF exist in open source. Then again, not even PocketPC Phone can properly display true Word/Excel documents without conversion. :) Try loading up a real corporate Word/Excel doc that uses full Office features over the air into a PPC.

Xmas

11-Jan-2007, 13:28

Well, you're an atypical user.
But so are you, too.

DemoCoder

11-Jan-2007, 13:35

I personally think that the iPhone is "too much".

They really could have killed the market if they went for an iPod and added OK phone capability to it that was only slightly more expensive than an iPod. Adding a treo like keypad would have immediately sold it to the texting world.

My biggest complaint is convergence devices which add on "ok phone capability". Inevitably, you get something good at PDA functions or media playback, but sucks at making calls. My advice for people interested in iPhone but concerned about tactile feedback: foldable bluetooth minikeyboard. Really, they are far better than even the best mini-qwerty keypad. For example, I make plenty of mistakes on a 6820, Treo, and Sidekick, my typing speed is nothing compared to a foldup keyboard.

I think Apple will eventually provide a landscape SMS mode where the keyboard is very big, and I bet you'll see weird third party add ons, like a flip-screen protector that has a tactile spongy keyboard that happens to perfectly line up with the onscreen icons.

RussSchultz

11-Jan-2007, 14:43

My biggest complaint is convergence devices which add on "ok phone capability".
Most people don't give a damn about PDA functionality in their phone.

It needs to make a call.
It needs to send/receive IMs/texts
It needs a basic phone book.

It does not need a diary. It doesn't need a calculator. Most games on cell phones stink.

If you can put that basic functionality in an iPod/music player for only slightly more cost, you'll sell a bundle of them. A ton more than these uber phones.

I'm not saying there's a not place for a good pda with a good phone, but the business case for a mainstream ipod+phone is way more compelling than the high end wiz-bang thing that came out.

Snyder

11-Jan-2007, 15:51

My biggest complaint is convergence devices which add on "ok phone capability".
Depends on how much convergence you need.
I'm really happy with my K750i as a mp3-player/cellphone/quick shot camera hybrid, for example.
- phone capabilities are state of the art.
- music player UI is quite good (esp. with the W800 firmware ;) - especially the intelligently placed side buttons makes it really intuitive and easy to use.
- camera use is as intuitive as it gets (ok, picture quality is another matter, but usability is great.)

Sure, it's no PDA/Smartphone. But it's really good at what it does.

Joe DeFuria

11-Jan-2007, 16:55

Most people don't give a damn about PDA functionality in their phone.

I'll take the middle ground.

Many people do need a PDA. These people ALSO need a phone. So, for those with a PDA...it makes sense to integrate a cell phone into the PDA.

A PDA device is never going to be "uber small" and still be usable, so for the PDA crowd, they are simply going to have to continue to live with a "large" device that's not easily stored in a pants pocket, etc. In other words, the form factor of the iPhone is not an issue to PDA users...and the interface might even be a boon...but that is yet to be seen.

That being said...the iPhone does not strike me as a legitimate PDA. It might be able to eventually evolve to it...but not in its current state.

The iPhone looks to me like a "media device" plus a phone. Like you, I am not convinced that a "large" form factor thing like this (as a media device) is the best approach they could have taken.

There will definitely be a market for the iPhone as it is, but I think apple needs may other products if it hopes to reach many people:

1) A more traditional phone (small form factor, 'standard' phone capabilities), but with "iPod" capability and "style"
2) A true PDA + Phone + iPod. This can be very similar to the current offering, but offer all the traditional PDA capabilities embedded. (Syncing with outlook, office apps, etc.)

Dresden

11-Jan-2007, 17:36

This couldn't have been unveiled at a more opportune time for me. I was on the brink of buying a Blackberry, but this has definitely changed my mind.

Kudos to Apple. But I'll stick to my PC for gaming.

Skrying

11-Jan-2007, 19:12

Oh wow, you found one eh. I can buy 2 dozen different kinds. For years, PC enthusiasts cited the advantages of the PC ecosystem, where I can buy so many different peripherals vs the Mac where your peripheral choices are fewer. I can only buy one or two flavors of a Radeon X1900, but on the PC you can buy dozens. Did the PC enthusiasts accept the fact that the Mac users could get the HW they needed, they just didn't have as many brand name variations and OEM bundles? Not really.

Now that the situation is different with respect to music players, that the iPod has far far more choices available for it, a much larger market that far dwarfs anythign else, suddenly the ability to have so many choices is downplayed. Oh, right, no peripherals worth buying, except maybe the few choices you could get for the Zen.

You're simply too stubborn to admit the benefits of Metcalf's law, of the network effect. The iPod is so popular, car manufacturers are making provisions for it, with *dealer installed* iPod options. You don't even need aftermarket solutions (which are still more plentiful than Creative)

The more people who own iPods, the bigger the market will be, the more choices.

You sure are assuming a lot of stuff in this post, a lot of stuff you absolutely have no clue about and then you top it off with me being stubborn. You honestly have no clue at what I want or need. Those items tend to be that I have no need for in car iPod integration, no need for iPod clothing, no need for portable speakers, no need for 99.9% of the various iPod accessories out there. Therefore I come to the conclusion that except for several key items (just so happens those key items also can be found for other players) I have no need for the "ecosystem" of the iPod. It is completely and utterly useless to me.

You're not being to sensible in this thread and instead you keep accusing people having being stubborn or Apple bashers, etc. I would suggest you take a step back and instead of being so emotionally invested in this, which you are coming across as, and make the typical sensible arguments you present.

DemoCoder

11-Jan-2007, 21:47

Most people don't give a damn about PDA functionality in their phone.

It needs to make a call.
It needs to send/receive IMs/texts
It needs a basic phone book.

No, it needs to do these things WELL as a phone. Why don't you go find an original Motorola MPX200 or even look at the phone book in the RAZR. The phone book is so terrible as to be UNUSABLE. Anyway, in the phone book apps, it's clear one can navigate beyond just scrolling, as the right hand side has letters. It's also not impossible for them to allow a popup keyboard to type in a partial name, especially from the numeric dialer.

The user interface in embedded devices matters tremendously. What other phone on the market offers random access visual voicemail? Sure, many carriers are selling unified messaging, but that only works on the PC if you want your voicemails in an Email-like interface via Web or IMAP. But phone integration is all together different.

If you can put that basic functionality in an iPod/music player for only slightly more cost, you'll sell a bundle of them. A ton more than these uber phones.

Most phones have basic MP3 playback capacity, and the vast majority of people never use this functionality but instead by a separate music player. Again, because the interface sucks.

I'm not saying there's a not place for a good pda with a good phone, but the business case for a mainstream ipod+phone is way more compelling than the high end wiz-bang thing that came out.

Apple already tried the ROKR. The low and midrange market is saturated with phones, and it's hard to do something completely innovative given the cost and formfactor restrictions in those segments. They are not looking to try and kill Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung in the low/mid range market. They are looking to take a chunk of the highend market. They don't want to get into the low-margin uber-crowed high-turnover mainstream market at the moment.

What they'll do, if they do anything at all, if leverage the highend iPhone success and cache' to later sell the equivalent of a iPhone Nano/iPhone Shuffle. It's like whining "wah! I don't want a $500 Geforce 8800GTX. NVidia sucks! Why don't they sell a GeForce 8300 NOW!"

Bobbler

11-Jan-2007, 22:00

This topic has too many words, so I didn't read it all -- maybe it's been covered before, but...

the iPhone seems like a pretty sweet phone. I initially wanted one and probably would have bought one had they not signed exclusively with Cingular for NA, which is like the worst provider in NA. After finding that out, I was sort of saddened, but realized that the existence of the iPhone will likely bring about more competition in that segment of the phone market, bringing about "better" and cheaper iPhone equivalents (much like the Mp3 market). About the only phone I can think of now that is similar to the iPhone is the W950 from SE, but it has a smaller screen -- hopefully we see more competition in this market, because I'd really like an iphone like phone, even though the two phones I have are pretty close, minus a bit of frosting and glaze.

I'm pretty happy with my current phones (S/E W810 and BB Pearl), but the iPhone had me tempted, too bad they seemingly aren't selling them unlocked (and even if they did, it wouldn't be near the already pricey $500 price).

ninelven

11-Jan-2007, 23:18

I think this about sums it up:

Well, you're an atypical user.
Well, anyone willing to spend 500-600 dollars on a phone....

DemoCoder

11-Jan-2007, 23:51

Atypical user out of the 1 billion mobile phone user market, but not atypical of business/enterprise smartphone users. This device targets the same people that Treos, PalmPhones, PocketPC Phones, Nokia Communicators, N95s, P800s, etc If you remove the mediaphone iPod functionality, the Email and Browsing capability alone are unparalleled. Pocket Outlook, and the Symbian clients are piss poor. You're talking to someone who had to implement MMAPI and IMAP extensions for these two, I know these like the back of my hand. Blackberry is the only thing that rivals, and excels in some areas, over iPhone. The UI looks better on the iPhone (the first blackberries were laughable), but the Blackberry's push functionality is still better, and Apple has to tread lightly else they will get sued by NTP.

Ike Turner

12-Jan-2007, 00:20

Snyder

12-Jan-2007, 01:25

To calm this thread down a bit - what about the hardware?
From what I could gather, the iPhone uses a Samsung ARM CPU with some additional graphics hardware - but I couldn't find anything definitive regarding the latter.
Maybe something like this? (http://www.arm.com/news/4743.html)
Would be a nice fit, wouldn't it...:cool:

DemoCoder

12-Jan-2007, 02:43

Of course I didn't try it, but I watched live video of jobs smoothly scrolling around presumably live webpages. From what I saw of the browser and email UI, it blows other phones out of the water. Try quickly navigating around to paragraphs of interest on Opera Mobile.

Analog scrolling, absolute positioning and clicking, double-click to zoom, pinch zoom. These features along make the browsing experience way better.

I'm amazing how on a 3D board, where people are overly sensitive to framerate latency, demand 30-60hz, complain about control problems with visual lag, often talk about how superior mouse driven control is in many games, that people don't seem to get how many annoyances highly responsive control schemes solve.

but fine, go on clicking scroll rocker switches and 5-way sticks, numeric keypads, and softkeys on other mobile phone browsers. Go be satisfied with an incredibly laggy scroll/zoom on other devices, the lack of an accelerometer to quickly switch from portrait to landscape. I predict when the iPhone finally hits reviewers on launch, and the initial kinks in the firmware are worked out, people will find that in head to comparisons, the "communications" (web/mail) experience as well as the media experience blow even upcoming devices like the N95 out of the water.

I took a lot of heat for predicting the short comings of the Wiimote control scheme, and pretty much everything I said about it came to pass. With the exception of tactile feedback for typing text (easily solved with a screen overlay), I predict that the multitouch screen and highly reactive UI will solve way more problems with mobile interaction than it will create.

Mize

12-Jan-2007, 03:32

I'm with you DC.
Give it a decent calendar app, CDMA and a replaceable battery and it's the phone of my dreams. Pretty close as it is. Any my touchscreen (treo) never gets dirty. I guess I need to wear makeup and hold the f*cker against my face more.

Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

12-Jan-2007, 17:44

No third party apps (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36919)?

DemoCoder

12-Jan-2007, 23:11

No homebrew, not no third party apps. There is a different. The iPod doesn't allow homebrew, but third party games are available on iTunes. Cingular is afraid of WiFi VOIP, the music industry is afraid of DRM cracks, and Apple wants to preserve the UI experience and is afraid homebrew thirdparty will present a bad impression of the iPhone. They want quality control as well as additional revenue streams.

I am willing to predict that Apple will allow third party apps, but they can only be installed through iTunes, they must be licensed by Apple and adhere to Apple style guidelines and quality control. Therefore, the software market on the iPhone will be more like the console market. The device has good gaming potential with the 3D hardware, so I highly doubt they won't let third parties develop, they just have to publish/license through Apple.

Apple will maintain this policy as long as it serves them. If it turns out that a competiting device is sapping their market because of homebrew, they will enable it, they'll have no choice. I am personally not that interested in homebrew starting out, as the device does most of what I want.

I went that route with my Palmphones, Symbian Devices, and PPC phones, and I never really found any third party apps that I used frequently, except for an instant messaging client, and a J2ME Google Maps/Mail.

I also predict that the iPhone's preferred interface for third party apps will be AJAX - JavaScript dashboard widgets that access JSON and ATOM/RSS data feeds. Both Google and Yahoo are pushing this, and the approach works very nicely for almost every app except for games and high performance media/communications (new codecs, new network protocols, such as making a SIP client) One can argue however that given the application processor nature of these devices, codecs and session protocols should be integrated at the OS level, to optimize battery. Doing them at the application level is the wrong way to go about it.

Mintmaster

13-Jan-2007, 07:45

I've been pondering the best convergence of devices, as I only want one thing in my pocket. I want:
-A storage device for easy data transfer
-An MP3 player
-A camera (low quality is fine)
-A PDA
-A phone
-Reasonable price

Just when I was about to pair a Treo 680 with SD/USB memory (http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Item(1853)-Shipping%20in%20October-SanDisk_Ultra_II_SD_Plus_USB_2GB.aspx), Apple comes out with this sweet device. I'd still prefer a SD slot in place of the memory, but wi-fi is getting common enough that it should be good enough for near-universal data transfer.

The only thing that bugs me is the contract. $499+tax is fine, but an additional $1000+ of cingular contract sucks (I assume $40/month is minimum, as usual). I don't talk nearly enough to warrant that kind of plan, and I just use T-Mobile's prepaid.

Anyone think we'll see unlocked iPhones on eBay in the near future? If so, I hope they stay under $700.