Inside the iPhone — 3G, ARM, OS X, 3rd Partyware

DECS writes "After heading off the top ten myths of the iPhone, Daniel Eran of RoughlyDrafted has written a series of articles looking 'Inside the iPhone,' exploring (1) why Apple didn't target faster 3G networks, (2) a substantiated look at how the iPhone is indeed running OS X (contrary to reports that it isn't), and (3) what it means to users and developers, and how ARM is involved, in Mac OS X, ARM, and iPod OS X, and why the supposedly 'closed' system Apple describes for the iPhone won't preclude third party development."

Comments

FUD much?

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Open development has both benefits and disadvantages. The reason Linux has made so little impact in the desktop market is largely because a fully open system tends to devolve into anarchy.
"Who supports what? What version is the standard? Where is the commercial incentive to develop for it? Who makes it all work together in a nicely integrated package, and once that happens, it is still open?"

It's all so confusing?!!? Windows, take me away... !!!!

Re:FUD much?

[bheer]

> But that's just the point -- if the iPod is successful as it is now (and it is), what's the point of having it do half again as much as it already does?

That's the point - you don't know. That'd be like a 70s guy asking what's the point of having a general purpose computer when you can have perfectly good word processing machines and tabulating machines? The point is that people do interesting things with your stuff when you open it up.

IBM knew this when it designed the PC. Microsoft knew this when they made MS DOS (and later OSes, including Windows Mobile) available to every OEM. Linus knows this extremely well. The point here isn't that IBM ultimately went out of the PC business or that Microsoft doesn't have a huge share of the smartphone OS market, it is that their ability to spawn platforms has added to their stature in the industry and has materially helped their bottom line.

Apple fans might get excited about the free publicity Apple gets with every launch, but companies like IBM and Microsoft -- and the Open Source community -- get free publicity from a LOT of people every day by creating opportunities for other people to do cool new stuff. And in the long run, the latter kind of publicity is what matters.

Okay, I was tempted with the last iPhone story...

[aussersterne]

...but now I have to say it: how many iPhone stories a day are we gonna get on the Slashdot front page, and for how long? This is a hell of a lot of coverage for a mere _phone_ that a) offers no new features not already available on other smartphones, b) is priced mostly out of the market, c) isn't on the market yet, and d) is tied to one carrier.

Re:Interesting stuff is GONNA HAPPEN

[bheer]

It may be leading edge to you, however as someone who's owned an XDA in Europe (and chatted on MSN Messenger when out in the countryside in 2002), it leaves me unimpressed. The Multi-touch screen is impressive, sure, but I didn't have too much trouble with the XDA's stylus and it allowed me to take handwritten notes with decent handwriting recognition.

Apple's stuff may be pretty, but you've got to remember that any cellphone sold in the US is behind the state-of-the-art by 18-24 months at least compared to markets like Europe and Asia. So I'd be careful about bandying about terms like 'leading edge'.

Fanboism at its finest

[eraser.cpp]

I don't see how some of this criticism isn't true.

Myth 1: the iPhone is missing EVDO (or some other high end feature) which will stifle adoption.

Decent 3G service is not for a niche market or only for the rich. People have shown that high-bandwidth services like streaming video can drive a broadband market. Could we honestly say that broadband Internet access on the desktop hasn't brought with it a range of practical and compelling uses for the general public? Now you'd have that kind of speed wherever you are and in your pocket! Stating outright that people won't need it for their handset is arrogant and short-sighted, the market will decide in the end. TFA also writes that decent 3G service is "overpriced, and not quite ready yet" but my PocketPC handset is over a year old, works great, and is cheaper than the announced price for the iPhone!

Myth Two: The iPhone is priced too high. It needs a 2 GB version for $299 lacking phone features.
How is the iPhone not expensive when compared to other phones? The $499 and $599 prices are with the two-year contract! That's significantly more expensive than every other PDA/Smartphone offered by Cingular, some of which are very comparable to the iPhone. "but it's also not expensive when compared to similar phones, which... aren't yet available" Need you be reminded that the iPhone itself is not coming out for almost 6 months? And how are the phones out today not similar? The Cingular 8525 looks comparable to me.

Myth Four: The iPhone software is a closed model, therefore the sky is falling.
How can you say that third-party software would make the handset insecure and unstable? Do you believe this about computers in general? Third party development can (and frequently does) turn the ideas of the general public into brilliant applications that would likely not have existed otherwise. They drive the entire computer industry, and how can you so quickly dismiss the handset market as being different where third-party development would only mean negative things?

I'm out of time but these "myths" just speak of desperate fanboism. Please realize that criticism is a healthy thing and that if this handset isn't perfect Apple has the time, money, and resources to make something that is better. After all, they're only just entering this market and will have lessons to learn just like everyone else.

Re:Don't downplay 3G!

[kanweg]

"I work for mobile phone operator. We have tried to push people to use data services on their mobile devices for years now. Why? Because we charge enormous amounts of money for data and it makes us a lot of money."

And for exactly that reason I refuse to use it. Voice is data, like internet stuff. I don't see any reason to pay tens of times more for one byte than for the other. (and it seems to me that the transfer requirements for voice are higher than for internet data). If you're bosses really want me to use it, give me a $40 per month deal like I have for voice. You'll make up in volume (more users) than what you're earning now.

BFN

Bert