3G iPhone Going Into Production In May

A few folks noted the rumor mill churning over 3G iPhones coming soon. Apparently they might be going into production as early as May, and announced somewhere in the 2nd quarter. Hopefully they manage to stick a GPS and another 16 gigs of memory in this one.

Comments

why

[Chutulu]

why so soon?

Re:why

[CockMonster]

Because the iPhone was a flop outside North America.

Re:why

[MistaE]

I don't think it is so soon. It's already almost been a year since the original came out.
 
This isn't Apple's other electronic markets, cell phones are updated almost the time, and usually it's not just a "slap a stick of bigger memory on it and call it a day" sort of revision. They need and should be adding more features to compete with the rest of the market.
 
With that said, I don't understand why the hell people keep begging for GPS, I just feel that there are so many other better self GPS only products that get the job done that Apple shouldn't bother with that market. Besides, if you're shelling out hundreds on an iPhone, I have a feeling you may have a GPS system of some sorts already.

Re:why

[kextyn]

Why so late? It's an iPhone, one of the most expensive phones on the market. I would expect to get 3G if I'm paying that much for a phone regardless of market penetration.

Re:why

[mdwh2]

Strangely I was thinking the opposite - why so late?

(And really - do we have a Slashdot story for every 3G phone that comes out? I had to double-check my calendar to make sure I hadn't slipped five years or more into the past. Maybe we can have news stories about other new fangled technologies like texting, MMS and Java?)

Re:why

[Chutulu]

i was being ironic.... i have a 3G phone for 2 years now and it cost me 175 euros.

Re:why

[Barny]

Also note, that in countries where the telecommunications system is in a stranglehold by a company dedicated to obsolete standards (NextG anyone?), the few providers of 3G are the only usable cellular data method, there is not EDGE so...

Or as you said, if a flip flop saves a flop, well, meh.

I stick to my nokia (edge, 3g, gsm, 802.11g) I think :)

Re:why

[morgan_greywolf]

Because the iPhone was a flop outside North America. And you'll see a lot of comments from Apple fanboi's defending Apple all the way, but here's the truth, uncensored. (Go ahead, mod me down, fanboi trolls) what a lot of North American (like myself) readers don't seem to understand is that while we just got 3G services and phones rolled out within the last 2 years by the likes of Sprint, Verizon, etc., here in the States, abroad, they've had 3G for quite sometime and are completely spoiled by it. In the EU, any smartphone that's not 3G is immediately destined for failure, especially since they're already rolling out '3.5G' and '4G' in Europe, while we think 3G is the newest thing, Europe is already moving on.

Re:why

[cbart387]

Because Apple is just that good. I mean, who cares that both Fedora and Ubuntu have a new version coming out in April. Obviously, just the fact that Apple's going into production in May is news!!! Whoops, did I show my bias?

Re:why

[Koutarou]

Among other reasons, because the iPhone is useless in non-GSM countries like Japan.

Re:why

[Bedemus]

what a lot of North American (like myself) readers don't seem to understand is that while we just got 3G services and phones rolled out within the last 2 years by the likes of Sprint, Verizon, etc., here in the States, abroad, they've had 3G for quite sometime and are completely spoiled by it. In the EU, any smartphone that's not 3G is immediately destined for failure, especially since they're already rolling out '3.5G' and '4G' in Europe, while we think 3G is the newest thing, Europe is already moving on. What a lot of North American readers (like yourself) don't seem to understand is that the population density in the countries where 3G coverage is widespread justifies that widespread deployment of 3G technology by giving companies a speedier return on their investment.

Such is the case for most of the connectivity technologies that see more rapid adoption overseas. There are large areas of the USA that are simply not densely populated enough to justify the expense of rolling out cutting-edge networks there. It isn't a matter of the US simply being behind the technological curve, as some like to assume.

Pardon the PHB nature of this next statement, but these are the types of differences that turn a 3 year ROI into a 10 year ROI, and slow down adoption.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother with GPS at all? In the UK, the small GPS units are only £30 and connect and work via Bluetooh fine. Why add the extra silicon for something thats not likely to be utilised by many? Also, is there even a TomTom clone, or will this rely on the (questionably accurate) Google maps etc?

Re:why

[bit trollent]

I do already have GPS but I really hope the next iPhone has it and is available soon. If the first version had GPS I would already own an iPhone and I probably wouldn't have a normal suction cup GPS. I would instead be suction cupping my iPhone to the windshield.

Now that I have a good car GPS system to save me from getting lost all the time, I want one in my pocket. I can think of a few times when I have been out in a city on foot, and had to worry about getting lost. It would have been nice to have GPS in my pocket whith the confidence that I would never get lost again. Knowing that you will never get lost makes you free to explore. This is as true in a car as on foot.

I think the main reason that the iPhone doesn't have GPS is that it is a tough feature to really get right. All the GPS systems I have owned have had their flaws. I can understand why you wouldn't want to introduce all that complexity and accompanying scrutiny when you are trying to get an already compelling (to some people) product out the door. I'm still basing my next cell phone purchase on GPS capabilities.

Re:why

[peragrin]

when fedora and Ubuntu comes out they too will get posted.

other than that Apple makes great random filler for the editors that always generate ad pageviews.

Re:why

[Moridineas]

nd you'll see a lot of comments from Apple fanboi's defending Apple all the way, but here's the truth, uncensored. (Go ahead, mod me down, fanboi trolls) what a lot of North American (like myself) readers don't seem to understand is that while we just got 3G services and phones rolled out within the last 2 years by the likes of Sprint, Verizon, etc., here in the States, abroad, they've had 3G for quite sometime and are completely spoiled by it. 1) I completely agree that apple dropped the ball by not initially launching the iphone as 3G. I want one, but have been waiting for a 3G version.

2) What service are you using that only rolled out 3g "within the past 2 years." I have been hard pressed to find a date for when Verizon rolled out their ev-do network (circa 2003--5 years ago--seems roughly it), but I'd guess I've been using it for 3-4 years. Verizon/Sprint/etc just rolled out their RevA ev-do, if that's possibly what you are confused by?

Re:why

[houghi]

Flop? It isn't on sale in Belgium. Other then that, you might be right. The reason might be that people in Europe are not realy surprised if they see a phone that can do some other things as well.

Re:why

[cbart387]

from here

In his message to investors, financial analyst Scott Craig points to channel investigations which show an iPhone capable of faster, third-generation cellular Internet access produced in small numbers in May, with a larger number surfacing in June as Apple prepares a formal rollout for the new device. My point was (and maybe I wasn't clear) is this is not even full production. I read the above (with emphasis by me) as this being simply a 'beta like rollout' with the full production in the fall. Fedora/Ubuntu's beta is currently running now and their formal rollout is less than a month away. So we get news about a device which will likely be fully rolled out in 5 months instead of a two very nerdy releases that will occur in a couple weeks. Wouldn't it be more nerd news to know how these distros are progressing in their betas. Yes I know I can look myself but we're talking about the point of slashdot. News for nerds. Stuff that matters

other than that Apple makes great random filler for the editors that always generate ad pageviews. So, I think you're right unfortunately. Even more unfortunate, I'm contributing to the pageviews.

Re:why

[Seahawk]

So - what is the reason for not having 3G on the east and west coast of USA? I would guess the population density there is comparable to most of Europe.

And don't think we have 100% 3G coverage over here(Denmark) - far from it. I would guess by area we're around 40%(Complete guesstimate), but coverage by population is at least 80% - I see nothing that prevents USA from doing something similar.

Re:why

[toleraen]

What service are you using that only rolled out 3g "within the past 2 years." I can't speak for the GP, but AT&T just rolled out 3/3.5G into the Minneapolis/St Paul area 5 months ago, so it's been less than half a year for me. Tmo, as I understand it, has not rolled out any 3G in the States. Maybe listing the two major CDMA providers was just a bad example.

Re:why

[dfghjk]

"What a lot of North American readers (like yourself) don't seem to understand..."

I fail to see anything in the parent post that suggests that he doesn't understand. In fact, it's likely that he understands all too well. Perhaps rather than take an argumentative tone in response, you simply add your point to further reinforce the his.

Now, if such large areas in the US can't justify 3G then how could they justify WiFi as an alternative? That is, after all, the Apple position on the matter.

Re:why

[ceoyoyo]

Maybe that's the problem with the cell phone market. Too many new "features."

My girlfriend just got a new phone to replace her two year old one that broke. The new one is almost imperceptibly smaller, the camera is slightly higher resolution, and the default ringtone is more annoying and more difficult to change.

Apple has done very well by resisting the urge to cram more "features" into their devices. Most famously, the iPod.

Re:why

[dfghjk]

"With that said, I don't understand why the hell people keep begging for GPS, I just feel that there are so many other better self GPS only products that get the job done that Apple shouldn't bother with that market."

Really? You are having trouble grasping the concept of integration? You see no value in having only one device in your pocket instead of two? A GPS unit you have with you will always be better than one you don't have.

As for battery life, GPS only consumes power when it is on. I'm amazed how people don't bother to think before commenting.

Re:why

[Bedemus]

Most providers do offer it in major metropolitan areas. AT&T Wireless, the carrier for the iPhone, for instance, shows their data coverage here. A subset of these areas supports 3G, as shown here. It's pretty easy to take a look at the data map, though, and get a feel for where there is population density that supports the rollout of the tech. If you go here you can see a similar coverage map for Verizon Wireless -- click "Broadband & V CAST" and look at the dark blue areas.

Re:why

[morgan_greywolf]

What I really meant about 'rolling out' was 'mainstreamed'. 3G was really new 4 years ago, but now I think almost every phone product line sold by Sprint, for example, offers several EVDO ('SprintSpeed') compatible models.

Re:why

[Bedemus]

They can't. That was a stall tactic by Apple to be able to give users very good performance in some limited situations while waiting on the 3G chips with lower battery drain to come out. I love my iPhone, but I'm not about to claim Apple really expected WiFi to be the primary network access method any time in the near future. But it sure does improve tech demos.

Re:why

[yabos]

It would help me greatly in many situations. Like when I went to Detroit(save money on plane tickets vs. Toronto) trying to find the airport, it seems easy from the mapquest directions but one wrong turn and I'm instantly lost and have to rush to find how to get back to where I'm going so I don't miss my plane(yes I found my way back to the interstate and was early for my flight).

Re:why

[David Munch]

Actually we have ~80% 3G coverage from both 3 and TDC.

Re:why

[DrgnDancer]

Dude.. You live in Chicago, it's a grid, lucky you. Try to find your way around Houston or New Orleans without help sometime. It's a bona fide nightmare. New Orleans has streets that are parallel in one place and intersect in others, they call it a the "Crescent City" for a reason. It also has streets change names at random places for reasons that, while historically interesting, make no navigational sense. New Orleans is a bit unique by any standard, but most of what I like to call the "post-WW II Southern Cities" are huge sprawling things with little planning and often several "downtown areas" interspersed with residential subdivisions and bedroom communities. I've been to New York and Chicago, their well planned grid and awesome public transportation are things to be envied... Most of us do, because we don't have them.

Re:why

[noewun]

There are large areas of the USA that are simply not densely populated enough to justify the expense of rolling out cutting-edge networks there. It isn't a matter of the US simply being behind the technological curve, as some like to assume.

This isn't true anymore. About 83% of the U.S. population lives in cities. We just aren't a rural country anymore. The simpler answer is that we have a de facto telecommunications monopoly in this country, and we all know how much monpolies love innovation.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

Per Wikipedia
---
Denmark

Area
  - Total 43,094 km^2 (134th^2)
                16,639^2 sq mi
Population
  - 2008 estimate 5,475,791 (108th)
  - Density 129.16/km^2 (78th^2)
                334.53/sq mi
---
USA

Area
  - Total 9,826,630 km^2 [1](3rd/4th-disputed3)
                3,794,066 sq mi

Population
  - 2008 estimate 303,641,000[2] (3rd4)
  - 2000 census 281,421,906[3]
  - Density 31/km^2 (144th)
                80/sq mi

Re:why

[jonwil]

Actually, thats not true. Telstra here in Australia has recently rolled out 3G UMTS at 850MHz in rural and remote areas. And the population density of the areas that now have NextG coverage is comparable to the population density of large areas of the US.
There is no reason why carriers in the US couldn't do the same and roll out UMTS at 850 or 700 or some other number that gives the same coverage as Telstra are getting.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

Most providers do offer it in major metropolitan areas. Which is extremely poor in comparison to europe. Arguments about population density really don't fly too well, because over here, I have full 3.5G coverage by 3 different providers, each having at least 3 basestations for town of barely 25k people. Apparently, ATT's 3G coverage is limited to towns of at least 100k people.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

Rank      State           pop per sq. mi  pop per sq km
1      New Jersey      1,138.0     439.39
2      Rhode Island    1,003.2     387.35
3      Massachusetts     809.8     312.67
4      Connecticut       702.9     271.40
5      Maryland          541.9     209.23
6      New York          401.9     155.18
7      Delaware          401.1     154.87
8      Florida           296.4     114.43
9      Ohio              277.3     107.05
10     Pennsylvania      274.0     105.80
11     Illinois          223.4     86.27
12     California        217.1     83.85

The point is that more than 44% of the population of the USA live in areas more densely populated than Spain, and more than 30% of the population live in areas that compare in population density to France.  So stop using it as an excuse for not providing decent services.  At the very least you should be able to provide services equivalent to France for around a 3rd of the population. In some densely populated states, the services compare poorly with Greenland (much less densely populated than any state in the USA including Alaska), Australia, Iceland or Canada, any of which would be in the bottom three by population density if they were states in the USA.

I get fed up of wah wah, population density, wah wah anytime you challenge a USAian on why the roads are rubbish, or the network coverage is so bad.

Re:why

[larkost]

This is one of those mis-conceptions Europeans have about the US. We have so much space over here that we rarely approach the same population densities as in Europe. If you take a look at population denisty maps you will see Europe blanketed with densities of over 100 people/sq km, where the US only gets that directly in the largest urban areas (Boston through Washington DC, Chicago, Detriot, and LA), and the density falls off quickly after that.

If you look at the 3G coverage maps, you will see that those in the US map nicly to that, but leave the majority of the population (living in areas with less than 100 people/sq km) without. So we do have coverage comparable to Europe, where the population density is the same. The issue is that Europ's population density is so much greater than that in the US we are forced to make differnt technical decisions.

Oh... and you are forgetting that some of the 4G trials are going on here in the US, and there is 3.5G coverage (some.. not good) in the big markets in the US as well. But the technologies are not pushed much, since you can't count on the covereage being everywhere you want it to be.

Re:why

[Afrosheen]

You're right about TMO. I keep wondering why every Sidekick revision is stuck on slow data access when it's a nice little data device, but TMO is partly to blame here for not embracing 3G yet. It was nice when it went to using Edge last year, but that's still not good enough.

Re:why

[ceoyoyo]

To be not irritating, GPS has to be ALWAYS on. If you turn it off it takes at least a few minutes to reacquire. Probably more for the crappy little antennas it has to work with in a cell phone.

Re:why

[Bedemus]

If you look at a coverage map, you'll see those areas you just listed are covered quite well.

I realize it's quite tempting for people inside the US and out to play these kind of one-upsmanship games, but let's not assume that market forces aren't working here the same way they work everywhere. I'm not sure if that was sarcasm about the Greenland coverage, but according to the only coverage map I could find, there's no "densely populated area" with that little coverage. If there was a way to expand coverage with the types of efficiency enjoyed by geographically smaller areas, we'd be doing the same.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

Some 95% of swedens (20 inhabitants/km2, 31 in the us) population is covered by 3g...

http://www.telia.se/privat/produkter_tjanster/mobilt/tackningskartor/tackningskarta3g-gsm/
http://www.tre.se/templates/Page.aspx?id=172
http://www.telenor.se/250.jsp

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

And not to mention the fact that Australia has 3G services nearly to everyone in the population. The telco claims 97%. Sure reception isn't always great in rural areas, but it's fine in all large population centres.

Australia's entire population is less than some of your cities.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the US is behind on these technologies is far less fundamental; the European Union has ensured the opening up of the mobile network markets, increasing competition and driving improved services and lower costs. Here in the UK there are at least five major 3G companies)3, T-Mobile, Orange, O2, Vodafone) who have been operating for years. Likewise, the 3G market was almost worthless before competition opened it up because prices were so high that adoption was pathetically low.

Free the market!

Re:why

[darrylo]

Most providers do offer it in major metropolitan areas. AT&T Wireless, the carrier for the iPhone, for instance, shows their data coverage here.

Note that AT&T's 3G coverage appears to have significantly improved since the iPhone was released. Last July, I took a look at AT&T's coverage, and it looked a lot more spotty than it is now. There are still waaaay too many holes for my liking, but the coverage is starting to look minimally acceptable (to me).

I'd guess the real reason, that the iPhone uses EDGE and not 3G, is that the chosen iPhone carrier (AT&T) didn't have sufficient 3G coverage at the iPhone release. If so, then it would have been utterly pointless to release a 3G iPhone if very few people could use it (in California, where Apple's HQ is -- don't know about the East coast or other places).

Re:why

[Sancho]

That hasn't been my experience. I've used a Garmin pretty extensively. When I leave it on all the time, it usually knows where it is seconds after walking outside. When I turn it off and drive a good distance away, it takes maybe 30 seconds to reacquire enough satellites to get its bearings. It may not get all of the satellites that it wants right away, but it's always been spot on after 30 seconds.

Re:why

[illumin8]

So - what is the reason for not having 3G on the east and west coast of USA?

Uh... I live on the east coast and we do have 3G with pretty much 100% coverage in most metropolitan areas. The west coast is the same. Apple just wanted to sell a product that you could also buy in Bumfuck, Iowa and not bitch about being unable to get 3G.

Re:why

[bonehead]

That's been my experience, as well. I've used older GPS units that did, in fact, take several minutes to acquire satellites every time you turned them on. All recent models that I've used, though, incorporate various trickery to greatly reduce this time. My Garmin Nuvi acquires satellites incredibly fast, and even the GPS that was in my Blackjack II would always pinpoint my location in less than a minute.

Re:why

[onosendai]

What a lot of North American readers (like yourself) don't seem to understand is that the population density in the countries where 3G coverage is widespread justifies that widespread deployment of 3G technology by giving companies a speedier return on their investment.

and your argument falls on it's face when you look at the deployment of 3G in Australia, and it's population density is far far below North America's

Re:why

[PipingSnail]

Dude.. You live in Chicago, it's a grid, lucky you.

Unlucky him. No character in a place like that.

It also has streets change names at random places for reasons that, while historically interesting, make no navigational sense.

Ah, so its like the UK. Where places have some history and character. Great. Sounds like a place I'd like. I know the music is up to the job.

Hate to burst your bubble dude, but for some of us, the thing you envy (the grid) is sterile and featureless.

Who orders food before they get to a restaurant they've never been to? Practically no one. Its not a reason to own a GPS. It is a marketing strawman. If you have not been to that restaurant before you don't know their menu, and you don't know their execution, thus ordering before you get there will gaurantee you only order what you know, not what they are capable of.

For those of you that can't live without a GPS, I pity you. Map reading is a bloody useful skill. One that you will need should your batteries fail you when you are several thousand metres above sea level on a mountain somewhere (and yes, that is worth doing, so get some exercise!) Yes, a GPS is useful, but life goes on without one and the damn thing does not need to be able to play MP3s, its a navigational device, not a disco.

Stephen

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

New Orleans has streets that are parallel in one place and intersect in others

Ha. Fort Worth has three parallel highways all named "287". Yes, really.

Dallas has an intersection of Belt Line and Belt Line. Yes, really.

Re:why

[ceoyoyo]

A big twelve channel parallel receiver with a good antenna can acquire within 30 seconds, provided you haven't gone too far away. I've got a handheld Garmin and that's the way it works. I also have a wrist-watch style Garmin Forerunner. It takes a good couple of minutes to reacquire, even if it hasn't moved in between. If you've moved a long way (such as taken a plane trip) it can take quite a bit longer. The Forerunner has an antenna that's several times bigger than anything that would be acceptable in an iPhone.

Re:why

[rainhill]

"Because the iPhone was a flop outside North America."

I live in Hong Kong, it's amazing to see just so many jailbreaked IPhones are on sale here, and people are buying it.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

That drives me nuts. The situation is very similar here in Minneapolis, lots of streets that wind around or shoot off at weird angles, merge with another street and form a lovely bottleneck or generally ludicrous situation. It's even worse in St. Paul. I honestly have no idea what is going on over there. There have been times when I felt like I slipped into some other dimension or something.

"How is this mathematically possible? There are seven right-angles at this intersection..."

*aneurysm*

Re:why

[Lemmy Caution]

Shouldn't it be "jailbroken" rather than "jailbreaked?"

Re:why

[mgblst]

Really? How about the fact that the Australian government forces a certain percentage of telecom company profits to go to projects supporting rural areas, and that they probably don't have that in the US? It would be unprofitable for telstra to do this without this huge support.

Re:why

[JAlexoi]

The main reason is that most people in EU live not like you guys. Owning a house is a privilege in EU, and you would never see something like suburbia as far as your eyes can see out of a descending airplane... A LOT of Europeans live in smaller space(apartments,smaller houses) than Americans, and when you count urbanized areas, you count in those suburbias...
When I came to US for the first time I thought: "What a large village!". Because in Europe you will not see a lot like it.

Re:why

[morgan_greywolf]

Really? How about the fact that the Australian government forces a certain percentage of telecom company profits to go to projects supporting rural areas, and that they probably don't have that in the US? Yes, we actually do, but it's more in the form of a tax that sometimes gets passed on directly to subscribers and sometimes not. It's called the Universal Service Fund. All telcos, including VOIP providers like Vonage, must pay into this fund.

Re:why

[rainhill]

Forgive my ignorance, English is my 3rd language.

Re:why

[trigpoint]

When you are walking having to hold a separate BT GPS and operate Google Maps on you phone can be cumbersome. Far easier to have them in one device. Looking forward to June when my contract is up and I can get an N95.

Re:why

[davesag]

You mean like Australia... which is about as sparse as you get (same size as the continental USA and 20mil people) but has had 3g and Edge and etc for ages. Sure the coverage sure can suck at times but we've had all this for ages in the major population centres. What has slowed iPhone adoption here in oz is the fact you have to go to China and buy a 'chipped' one because the darn thing has not formally been released down-under. People I know who bought black market un-sim-locked ones (and apparently unlocked iPhones make about 30% of total iPhone sales) are very very happy with them, 3G or no. Come to think of it the Sony Erricsson phone I have is Edge only and I have not noticed the difference between that and my old 3G phone when using apps like Google Maps, or web browsing. Still i'll be holding off for the official 'enterprise' version to be released in oz. d

Don't take away my storage, captain!

[Anonymous Coward]

A few folks noted the rumor mill churning over 3G iPhones coming soon.

But my iPhone already has 8 gigs!

Will it have a Paris Hilton news blocker?

[Big Frank]

If it did, I'd buy it at any cost!

Re:Will it have a Paris Hilton news blocker?

[Satan Dumpling]

I just want ads blocked on my iphone. I tried editing the hosts file on my iphone, but it didn't work. Any suggestions? I need a solution on the iphone itself that will work anywhere.

Re:Will it have a Paris Hilton news blocker?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2008/03/13078/

Costs ~$8 apparently, but if it works, it works.

Re:Will it have a Paris Hilton news blocker?

[Anonymous Coward]

with the economy in recssion, i wonder how many people have the $$ to spend on a 500$ phone when they are pumping $4/gal into their cars. Well i guess if it has a paris hilton block, i'd say fuck the gas, get the phone.

Why does iPhone succeed?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I was thinking about this the other day. Why does the iPhone "succeed"? It is essentially a rehash of a Treo. Sure, it has a nicer interface, but is that it?

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[MistaE]

Never underestimate the power of the 'coolness' factor. Also, you write off the nicer interface as if its somewhat insignificant. That's the CORE component of any consumer electronic market. The public is going to interact with the most part through the interface, if it sucks, they're not going to spend the time to learn it.

Like it or hate it, you got to admit that the iPhone has a pretty nice interface and it's not too hard to learn. When my mom and aunts, who are in their 40s and not very technologically adept, decided to pick up iPhones and can use them as well as me, you know they're doing something right.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[ironwill96]

It all boils down to this: what the iPhone does it does well.

I have used other smart phones such as the Motorola Q and the Blackberry, but the iPhone is the simplest to use for what I want: easy to access and read e-mail and web browsing and a phone. It also does simple things like work as my calculator, a calendaring system, take notes on it, do alarms, stop-watch, stock quotes, weather and whatever else you download for it now. And oh yeah, it is my iPod too and I synch it with Bluetooth to my car for use as hands-free.

As someone else already pointed out, the ease of use and interface are the key things that a good smartphone really needs - and Apple succeeded quite well with their first try. Yes, it didn't have 3G or GPS built-in for the first pass at it, but future versions most certainly will. Once they add the rest of those features, i'll be surprised at what people will find to complain about it then. It will probably never have enough memory for the complainers and i'm sure the DRM and device lock-down are also something to continue to complain about, but i'm happy with the phone now just as much (or more than) I was when I bought mine back in September after they lowered the price on it. Now if only AT&T could get some better coverage around where I live :-)

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[mdwh2]

The other reply got modded flamebait, but the spirit of the answer was correct - consider how it's not just marketing from Apple themselves, but from phone shops that promote it, and news media from Slashdot to the BBC. What's this - a news article not about the release of Iphone, but simply a new version supporting a feature that's long been a standard? Most phones don't get a story at all.

Apple appear to be taking advantage that many people are unaware how almost every phone (even cheap ones) can do Internet access as standard, so they are able to promote it as a new and wonderful thing (even on Slashdot, I see this happening).

(And it's not clear it has "succeeded" apart from in the sense of not flopping? Sure it's succeeded, but so has the Treo and many other phones, but if you mean been a success above all others, that's not clear at all to me.)

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Admiral Ag]

The iPhone could be equipped with a perpetual motion machine and a love ray that instantly seduces any woman it is aimed at, and some people would still complain that it doesn't support MMS, and thus they would rather have their free flip phone.

Don't underestimate the power of the dark side.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[darkwhite]

The interface is just about all that matters in a cell phone. I am sick and tired of cell phones with user interfaces that SUCK. The iPhone has a pioneering full-surface touchscreen display just like I envisioned. It rolls a great mp3 player in. It's thin enough to fit in a jeans pocket without anyone noticing, thinner than most phones. Those are all killer features. Smartphones? Barf. A rehash of Treo? Get out of here.

I'll definitely be getting a 2nd gen...

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[teh kurisu]

Apple appear to be taking advantage that many people are unaware how almost every phone (even cheap ones) can do Internet access as standard, so they are able to promote it as a new and wonderful thing (even on Slashdot, I see this happening).

I'm sure they're also attracting the people that have tried out the browsers on their phones, and found them so painful to use that they've just given up. I'm one of them - I never use the browser on my Samsung Z560 unless I really have to. In contrast, I'll browse the web on my iPod Touch quite happily - it's not as good as a desktop browser, but it's not that far off.

In fact, I was ranting to my boss just now about the fact that my phone browser forgets cookies when the browser is closed (which happens every time you close the clamshell, annoyingly). It's particularly apparent when using PayPal Mobile, which shows you a regular login page by default. You can opt to log in using your mobile number and a PIN, and if you've got the cookie you'll be automatically redirected. Mine, unfortunately, forgets the cookie.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[mdwh2]

The iPhone could be equipped with a perpetual motion machine and a love ray that instantly seduces any woman it is aimed at, and some people would still complain that it doesn't support MMS, and thus they would rather have their free flip phone.

Unlikely. But if the free flip phones had a perpetual motion machine and a love ray that instantly seduces any woman it is aimed at, some people would still rather have their expensive Iphone, and that's still all we'd hear about on Slashdot.

But since neither is true, that's irrelevant.

(Can you give me some unique features of the Iphone - features that you bought it for - or can you only give me things which are as real as perpetual motion machines?)

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Pretor]

I'll give you several

1: Ease of use.
2: High quality software - few software bugs
3: Ipod
4: Very good web browser
5: Some very nice third party software (if you jailbrake it)

I've also have a Nokia E90 - so I'm able to compare my iPhone to a more feature full phone. This is a phone that has almost all the features that you could imagine. 3.5G, GPS, SIP client, multi megapixel camera, keyboard and etc. This is similar to other expensive Nokia phones.

The problems with the Nokia phones are:

1. Several different confusing menus - the series 60 is awful to use
2. Lots and lots of bugs, several that freezes the phones
3. Terrible multimedia software
4: Good web browser with bad user interface. Nokia calls it Safari (webkit) based, but the interface is miles away from the iPhone

Yes my Nokia E90 has it bright spots. For example I bring it along on my travels because of it's GPS and its SIP client. Additionally the keyboard makes it nice using ssh to check problems with servers and etc. And it's really nice to have 3.5G Internet access. But since it's awful to use as a day to day phone it's mostly left at home.

BTW: I live in Oslo, the main capital of Norway. An area with very good 3G and 3.5G coverage. So I know what I'm missing with just the EDGE network.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[dfghjk]

The Treo did succeed and it would be more successful now if its software wasn't of such poor quality. The iPhone does many things better than the Treo even ignoring the Treo's stability problems.

The Treo concept remains a desirable one so you answered your own question. The company that does the best job with this type of device will succeed. Right now it is Apple (among others).

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[ceoyoyo]

Yes. I mean really, every computer today is just a rehash of an IBM PC or an Apple II with a nicer interface, right? And THOSE are just rehashes of Vaxes in a nicer box, yes?

I know a guy whose work got him a Blackberry. He was showing it to me, complained a bit about how the interface was a bit difficult. When he saw my iPod Touch he went out and bought himself an iPhone, pre-hacked to work in Canada. He's middle aged, not really subject to the coolness factor.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[linuxpng]

as a former treo 700p user it's because.....

you don't have to reboot it 5 times a day and it doesn't have interface lag switching between networks.
Oh the web browser is actually useable.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[dfghjk]

"Don't underestimate the power of the dark side."

By the dark side you're referring to that force that's is causing your ridiculous whining, right?

How does the world's greatest multimedia phone do without supporting the oldest and most basic multimedia functionality again? Is MMS really that hard for Apple?

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Rogue Pat]

BTW: I live in Oslo, the main capital of Norway.

As opposed to the other capitals of Norway? :o

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[darkwhite]

Apple appear to be taking advantage that many people are unaware how almost every phone (even cheap ones) can do Internet access as standard, so they are able to promote it as a new and wonderful thing No, Apple are taking advantage of the fact that every smartphone out there has interfaces and browsers that suck, while the iPhone's is somewhat decent. Same for about a dozen other features of the iPhone: other products claim to have them, but they are so painful to use that few people can stand them.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[teh kurisu]

Not only that, but the iPhone is free of all the crap that the networks insist on putting on your phone.

T-Mobile UK have intentionally made my Samsung Z560 more annoying to use. The most infuriating example is the web browser's bookmarks list. At the top of the list are two bookmarks for 'T-Mobile Favourites' and 't-zones'. You can't delete them, or even move them to another position on the list. The worst part is that the phone only shows three bookmarks on the screen at a time, you have to scroll to see more. So when I open my bookmarks menu, I see one of my bookmarks, and two that T-Mobile want me to see.

So basically, I'm buying an iPhone as soon as a 3G model comes out.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[SoulGrind]

That's what sold me (initially). I have to admit, I was a first adopter based on the WOW factor.

My old Motorolla V551 took a hard hit and was knocked out cold. I needed a phone - fast... I walked into the Cingular/AT&T store, asked to see a phone that would do more than just be a phone... So I looked at Palm... Been there, done that, have the t-shirt from Handspring... *yawn* --- I looked at Blackberry... too fruity for me... --- I then took a serious look at the (then) top of the line Windows Mobile device... sleek, sexy styling with turbo handling, all the business needs rolled into a nice, convenient package, NATIVE support for Exchange, Word, Excel, full apps, not just viewers, the quintessential Solitaire and more... and then... the price tag... $500 --- I told the sales punk, "I might as well buy an iPhone." So he showed me the iPhone. He turned it on... Ooooh! Aaaah! Here's my credit card. Wrap it up nice and pretty for me, OK?

Several months later, here I am... frigging iPhone doesn't sport ActiveSync, email is a throw back to the dark ages (I think Pine had more features), friggen OS X without copy/cut/paste - WTF?!?! Edge Wireless? That's all? You're kidding right? No voice dialing? No Bluetooth tethering? The list of gripes goes on... But Oooh... it's so pretty...

I love my iPhone - (under my breath: frigging under-developed piece of...)

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[smenor]

You're already modded 5 but I just wanted to echo the sentiment.

I've used other smart phones and mobiles and, for my taste, the iPhone's UI is simply the best. Browsing is much easier and more intuitive, and although it does lack a few nice features like voice dialing, the standard phone functions are better laid out and more intuitive than most other mobiles.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[intheshelter]

I think this comment clearly demonstrates why the polarized arguments about the iPhone are pointless. To say the iPhone is a rehash of a Treo is only true if you consider all email applications equal, or all browsers equal. Yes, it's the interface, but not becauase it's "nicer", but rather because it's the first phone interface that is intuitive and usable. I could hand one to my daughter (5) and she could figure it out. No other phones are like that and that is why people are excited about the iPhone. It works the way a phone should work.

As for the folks who think an iPhone is only used because it's "cool", I would say that's a SMALL slice of the market. I don't doubt there is a segment of people who buy it because they want to be trendy, but more folks are buying an iPhone because it works they way they ALL should have worked for years.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously comparing a Treo to an iPhone? I had 2 Treos (600, 700p) before the iPhone. There is a vast difference.

- Blazer is a joke of a browser.
- VersaMail sucks and SnapperMail is not much better. Both pale in comparison to the Mail application on the iPhone
- The media player on the 700p is a joke compared to the iPhone.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Man On Pink Corner]

Several months later, here I am... frigging iPhone doesn't sport ActiveSync, email is a throw back to the dark ages (I think Pine had more features), friggen OS X without copy/cut/paste - WTF?!?! Edge Wireless? That's all? You're kidding right? No voice dialing? No Bluetooth tethering? The list of gripes goes on... But Oooh... it's so pretty...

<shrug> It's a 1.0 product. When's the last time you bought version 1 of anything that was anywhere near as well-developed as an iPhone?

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Man On Pink Corner]

It's thin enough to fit in a jeans pocket without anyone noticing

You can bet the engineer responsible for that has been sacked.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Maserati]

Same for about a dozen other features of the iPhone: other products claim to have them, but they are so painful to use that few people can stand them.

It's the little things in the implementation that give the iPhone it's edge in UI. Just about every cell phone has a timer, an alarm and a stopwatch. On my old Razr and Samsung a437 those functions are buried deep in the interface and require many key presses to set up an alarm (stopwatch features don't require a lot of key presses). On an iPhone you just open the clock app, switch to the right tab and spin the dials to set up an event. Those funky spinning dials also make setting the date & time for a calendar appointment MUCH easier than on any other phone. Easily selecting a specific time isn't a feature that makes it into presentations or advertising, but it makes using the thing on a daily basis easier. Say what you will about the iPhone interface as a whole, but the spinning dials are truly great widgets.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Firehed]

I just don't get the MMS argument. Why would I want to spend half a buck to send a picture to a phone number when I can send it over email to phonenumber@carrier.com for free?

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Zeinfeld]

I was thinking about this the other day. Why does the iPhone "succeed"? It is essentially a rehash of a Treo. Sure, it has a nicer interface, but is that it?

I have the palm version of the Treo. It is complete shite.

Form factor first, it is heavy and the antenna sticks out. The stylus fell out of the pocket long ago and they charge Apple prices for a replacement - $20 for three pointy sticks. I am now on my third replacement in two years. Some people I know have been through six.

The browser is crud. It does not have a cache so you have to reload every page even if you only just navigated there. The javascript is buggy.

The bluetooth implementation is poor, there is no WiFi. The command set is illogical, half the time you press the place call button to dial a number, but not always, sometimes that is cancel.

Unlike the iPhone it is at least unlocked. But the downside is that if you do put a third part app on it the chronic unreliability is likely to get worse.

The iPhone is the only phone on the market today with a web browser that does not completely suck. The fact that it is a really nice Web browser is kinda superfluous.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[trickonion]

I'm sorry things didnt work out for you Mr "I dont do research".
(Note: Im not an iphone fan, I believe phones are embedded devices and I like mine to stay as such. Reliable, robust and good at their core competencies"

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[SoulGrind]

I'm not sorry I purchased the iPhone. I really do LOVE the phone. It's the most intuitive, user-friendly (cell) phone I have ever used.

IMHO, Despite the iPhone's initial shortcomings, Apple got several things right out the gate - Google Maps has proved invaluable to me many a time, even more so with the Locate Me feature that's been recently added -- it's a poor man's GPS of sorts. The Address Book is by far the best I've seen on any phone (compared to Treo, Blackberry, etc.) especially with its tie-ins to the camera/photo library. The iPod ain't shabby either, albeit, 8 GB is a bit slim for my audiophile tastes - so I keep my regular 60 GB iPod handy. The SMS client, while lacking in the MMS dept. is much easier to navigate overall. And since I don't use SMS for MMS purposes, it's no bother to me. But I can see how a person could be bothered by it - especially when receiving MMS on the iPhone - that's no trite task, especially with the lack of copy/paste. The calendar is a God-send, especially with the ability to set multiple alarm structures for a single event and tie in to the telephone features. And the phone itself couldn't be more intuitive when merging/dropping calls, etc. Only thing that does bug me is the inability to poke around in the address book while on a call. Jailbreaking solves this problem, however, not everyone jailbreaks.

Overall, the iPhone is rock solid. However, as a competitor in the corporate arena, the iPhone still has some growing up to do. Blackberry and MS Phones have the edge there. Time will only tell as Apple has recently licensed ActiveSync for Exchange and who knows what else will come to fruition. I for one look forward to the iPhone future, especially since I have a vested interested; being an iPhone owner and all.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[SoulGrind]

I don't think that's the point. I think even v1.0 products should at least set a core level of competency. If the world uses X features on just about every product, why limit or omit feature X?

Take hands-free dialing for example. The State of California issued several press releases about the impending law stating that cell phone use while driving would require hands free, yet, within less than a year of said law taking effect, the iPhone was released without the ability to voice dial, ergo, not being truly hands-free. You think Apple would be up to the task of do-diligence by making sure their user base is able to adhere to local and state legislation. There are alternatives... don't use your phone while driving or only answer calls using a headset. Alternatively, Motorola offers (for about $200) a device that connects to the iPhone and facilitates hands-free voice dialing. The problem is, it's an expensive add-on that should never have been needed in the first place.

Instead of focusing on stock tickers (can be had through the web browser), weather information (can be had through the web browser), and YouTube services (can be had through the web browser), I think the Apple dev team would have spent their time more wisely by addressing real-world issues such as tethering the phone to a BlueTooth laptop for use as a modem, fine tuning the email app so it's not so cludgy (have you ever tried deleted more than 20 emails in a sitting) - I think I have carpal tunnel in my tapping finger... but I digress...

Yes, I understand there will be plenty of items left on a to-do list at the end of a 1.0 release cycle. Many things end up on the cutting room floor. But why cut out common, everyday, key features that just about every modern (cell) phone already supports and leave your customer (and potential fanboy base) high and dry with the "So Sorry" schpeal?

And before you say, "Well, you bought into it anyway" - Yes I did. I know I did. I don't regret that I did. But now that I am here, I am noticing things that could have been done better - just like everyone else who owns an iPhone.

However, I must give Apple props - on a whole, out of the gate, they did quite well. I think Apple was wide to eliminate the 4GB model as well as cut the price of the 8GB model. And the end user experience has been beyond anything I ever found with any other phone...

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Man On Pink Corner]

You make some valid points there, although I don't think it's possible to build a complex consumer device that's "perfect" from everyone's point of view. When something like the iPhone is announced and hyped to death, I feel fortunate if it doesn't just outright suck.

When I want to use the phone while driving -- which is rare -- I just do it, the same way I'll drive 65 in a 55 zone when I feel like doing that. Yay for individual judgment.

And I rarely use the phone for email. I was (un)lucky enough to be one of the first GMail users, so I had my pick of user names. I picked a short one with a variant of my (relatively-common) name. Now I get an impractical volume of misaddressed email that renders the account useless, although amusing. So, since I don't delete anything or otherwise make any effort to manage the mailbox, the email UI is fine for my purposes.

Yes, Safari crashes fairly often, and no, the telephone itself is not exactly the best out there. And I definitely agree that the built-in specialty apps are either superfluous, or full of forehead-slapping missed opportunities. But the fact that the iPhone does so much stuff, and does it at least reasonably well, means that I'm pretty sure I'll never live without one unless forced to by extreme poverty or disease. :-P

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both pale in comparison to the Mail application on the iPhone

You are correct, Versamail allows you to create/delete/and manage iMAP folders, and I can cut and paste. I guess you never needed either of those functions? I can say that Versamail "just works", the addressbook worked as I think it should and it was simple and easy to use. What do you find so much better with what is on the iPhone?
I don't use Blazer much, I use Opera and it is stable.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[sumdumass]

I wouldn't complain, tell me, where could I get this equipped at? I usually shun away from apple products but if this _could_ be done, I would make an exception because I need all the help I can get. MMS be damned for all I care.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[mdwh2]

T-Mobile UK have intentionally made my Samsung Z560 more annoying to use. ... So basically, I'm buying an iPhone as soon as a 3G model comes out.

That's an issue with your network. And at least with many other phones you have a choice of network!

My phone with Vodafone has none of that crap on (and I can view 11 bookmarks on screen at once btw, on my cheap phone's smallish screen).

I mean, I'm genuinely confused - you are displeased with your network, and your conclusion is not to switch network, but to buy an Iphone? Do you really think that there's some kind of network conspiracy where all the networks put crap on all the phones, with the sole exception of the Iphone?

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[mdwh2]

No, Apple are taking advantage of the fact that every smartphone out there has interfaces and browsers that suck, while the iPhone's is somewhat decent.

My non-smartphone can at least run Opera Mini, which does fine. Are smartphone browsers really that bad? I've known friends who've happily browsed the web on smartphones like the Treo for years, and they never seemed to have a problem.

See, this is what I mean about people talking about the Iphone - it's always "Iphone is better, it just is, other phones suck!" and never any specific features or examples. Refining this to "Iphone's UI/browser is better, it just is, other phones' UI/browsers suck!" doesn't answer the question.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[mdwh2]

In fact, I was ranting to my boss just now about the fact that my phone browser forgets cookies when the browser is closed (which happens every time you close the clamshell, annoyingly). It's particularly apparent when using PayPal Mobile, which shows you a regular login page by default. You can opt to log in using your mobile number and a PIN, and if you've got the cookie you'll be automatically redirected. Mine, unfortunately, forgets the cookie.

Cookies work fine on my dirt cheap phone. Just a thought that you might want to shop around before getting the Iphone which for some reason now seems to be treated as a default choice.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[T-Bone-T]

My fiance's RAZR looks thick compared to my iPhone and I always thought the RAZR was thin.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[ltrm]

Well my Nokia N95 and older Nokia N80, both on Vodafone have both been screwed up by Vodafone. If you try to use the Nokia firmware update software to get the latest bug fixes from Nokia you will find you can't. That's because Vodafone insists that you install only their branded firmware, which they don't update. The end effect is that both phones needed to be 'debranded' in order to have any bugs fixed at all and in the case of the N80 there were a LOT of bugs in it at release time. That's the sort of thing that's making me want to switch to an iPhone. If it was possible to use a bluetooth GPS with a current generation iPhone I'd be happier with that. (SMK why I Apple doesn't support that).

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[Phroggy]

Cookies work fine on my dirt cheap phone. Just a thought that you might want to shop around before getting the Iphone which for some reason now seems to be treated as a default choice. You really expect people to check for things like whether or not the built-in browser loses cookies between sessions when they're shopping around? How many other annoying little details do we have to check for?

If I buy an Apple iPhone, I don't have to shop around, I already know that everything Apple says it can do will work properly, without hassle, because I trust Apple's reputation. The only reason I haven't bought one yet is that there are still a few features I need that the iPhone doesn't support (tethering is the dealbreaker, but I can think of a few other things that would be nice to have, that my old piece of crap Motorola v551 can do just fine).

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[dmarcoot]

Other phone can do internet standard, but almost no one use it. Google even proved this when it announced that the iphone is responsible for 50x more web searches than the next closest phone.

The people who like to say well this and that phone are like the iPhone.

Well users of those phones have proved that they simply are not.

As someone who has an iphone, i find its web browser a joy to use. Not just "usable", but so usable as to actually be fun. Sure some of features are sub par, to claim that other phones do internet just as well is patently false and absurd.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[dmarcoot]

" but if you mean been a success above all others, that's not clear at all to me.)"

Well fortunately, It doesn't matter if its clear to YOU, because you couldn't be more wrong. The below is just one independent metric that supports this claim. Google and other market share reports have shown the simialar.

"From December to March, Mobile Safari's browser market share in the U.S. jumped from 0.14 percent to 0.23 percent. StatCounter said that the iPhone is now the number one mobile browser in the United States, and number two globally"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143732-pg,1/article.html

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[mdwh2]

Other phone can do internet standard, but almost no one use it. Google even proved this when it announced that the iphone is responsible for 50x more web searches than the next closest phone.

The people who like to say well this and that phone are like the iPhone.

Well users of those phones have proved that they simply are not.

I can't quite parse those last two sentences? But Google's stats hardly prove me wrong when I say that I use my phone for Internet access! And I question those stats - I believe Google is the default for the Iphone, where as it isn't for many phones. Even Opera Mobile until recently used Yahoo rather than Google. It's also not clear how they detect or categorise phones - for example, my phone uses Opera Mini, which will go through Opera's servers. The real tell-tale sign about this statistic is the fact that they don't give us a market share, they simply say it's the most common, which means for all we know the competition is just spread across a large number of categories. Without knowing the full breakdown, it's meaningless.

But anyway even if it's relevant, on the contrary, it supports my point - that the Iphone is nothing new, but it seems to be generating hype from the fact that many people seem to be unaware of the features of phones these days, so when they hear someone saying about the Iphone accessing the Internet, or they see an ad for it, they think "Oh wow, that's so new".

It's just like when everyone fell for Windows 95 and how amazing it supposedly was because it "could multitask and had a GUI". Apple are the new Microsoft: advertising old technology as if it were new, and getting away with it.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[mattack2]

Pine "had" more features?

Alpine is the current version of the product (it's essentially pine 5.0, see the web site for the reasons for renaming).
http://www.washington.edu/alpine/

I use it as my primary email program, inside this "fruit company".

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[mdwh2]

Again, useless without the breakdown. Especially as I suspect that combines the Iphone figures with those of the Ipod touch.

But sure, I concede that in the much newer and smaller market of wifi devices, the Apple may be one of the players (but still that isn't evidence to say they are number one), however I was talking about the much larger phone market. The Ipod touch isn't even a phone!

Give us figures of market share instead of these dubious browser stats you keep plugging.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[dafing]

Im lucky enough to have gotten an unlocked iPhone here in NZ, its probably still "a year away" from being on sale here.

I love so many things about it, I'm on a prepay account, here its costs about NZ$10 a MB, and as you know it doesnt have 3G, so its bloody expensive for dialup speed on GPRS. I dont use any of the "iPhone features" like the weather, Youtube, Google Maps etc because of the cost. I leave its wifi off unless Im downloading new apps through Installer etc. And as a normal phone I love it, much better than my RAZR in almost everyway.

It certainly feels great to just use as a phone. Thats why I like it. Its also "the best iPod" about, hell, you can play music through its one speaker on the bottom! wow!

Apart from price, running cost etc, I dont see how anyone could have a problem with the iPhone.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[teh kurisu]

I've never seen a phone that was network-subsidised that didn't come with some form of craplet on it. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong phones/networks.

Buying an iPhone is part of my dastardly scheme to switch providers, the iPhone being tied by O2. I'm really just sticking with T-Mobile until my current contract reaches its end, and/or a 3G iPhone is released (there are plenty of reasons why I want an iPhone, and plenty of reasons why I don't want one now).

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[teh kurisu]

Another point - Apple make it very easy to try out the iPhone before you buy (well, as long as you live near an Apple Store anyway).

In a normal mobile phone shop, you're confronted with dummy phones. All you get is an approximation of what the phone will look like. If you want a demo, you have to ask the assistants, most of whom are there not to help you, but to try and sell you a contract. When I last tried to have a phone demoed to me, the salesman was reluctant to even let me hold it - he wanted to be in control of the demo, to make sure I was aware of all the wonderful features I didn't care about. It wasn't a good experience and I don't really feel that I learned all that much.

In an Apple Store, you walk in, and there are iPhones laid out on tables, switched on, pre-loaded with SIM cards and connected to the unsecured WiFi network that Apple provides. You're free to make calls, send texts and connect to the internet, without being chaperoned by a sales person. You have the opportunity to get to know the phone, for better or for worse, without even talking to a salesperson.

Re:Why does iPhone succeed?

[cthulhu11]

It all boils down to this: what the iPhone does it does well. Notably, properly syncing iCal and Addressbook data, which AFAICT *no* other phone does. Admittedly I have to believe the fault lies with iSync for the most part, but in the end I want my phone to have my addresbook and calendar data.

Should change name

[ArAgost]

Is this rumors for nerds?

Re:Should change name

[ArAgost]

I do already have three fruit-company-branded computers lying around the house, so gay tech interests me - I'm not gay, so I must be a designer/artist/typography guy/musician. The point is that a 3G iPhone is being rumored since the announcement of the first iphone, and his Steveness himself said in january 07 that 3g was in the plans. This is still by no means news, although I agree that it is likely to happen soon, so I find it an item more for macrumors or appleinsider.

day early?

[Tom]

Isn't this a day early?

Re:day early?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Isn't this a day early? and a dollar long

Re:day early?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate reading slashdot on March 31th!

I spend the year fearing this date.

Here's an idea for Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Include STEREO Bluetooth (A2DP) ... I still don't get why this was left out of the original.

Re:Here's an idea for Apple...

[empaler]

Most reviews of A2DP that I've seen mention words like "buggy" or "unreliable". I'd bet that it is relevant for Apple's decision.

Re:Here's an idea for Apple...

[dfghjk]

Wouldn't that be an opportunity for Apple? Are they really that dependent on others to fix the bugs first? Can't Apple do their own bluetooth software AND the headset to match?

I thought Apple was innovative. The only thing innovative is people's excuses.

Re:Here's an idea for Apple...

[Phroggy]

Wouldn't that be an opportunity for Apple? Yes, it is an opportunity for Apple, but not one that's easy to advertise. You can say something like "we have stereo headphone support, just like our competitors, but ours works better," but unless your customers already have had bad experiences with stereo headphones using a competing product, it won't ring true. This is the key behind the Mac vs. PC ads - everybody already knows how much PCs suck, so when Apple says PCs suck, people say "oh yeah, I know what they're talking about, that sounds just like my experience."

Are they really that dependent on others to fix the bugs first? Can't Apple do their own bluetooth software AND the headset to match? Yes and no. Apple is certainly capable of developing their own chipsets, but it's expensive to do so - it's much cheaper to just buy them from some other company who has had a lot more experience making that particular item. Apple's strength is in packaging components together in such a way that the end result is so integrated that the user forgets it's comprised of distinct components.

I thought Apple was innovative. The only thing innovative is people's excuses. Apple is innovative, but part of that innovation lies not in creating a product from scratch, but combining off-the-shelf components in a new way. The original iPod was innovative, but the 5GB hard drive it contained was the same off-the-shelf hard drive used by professional digital photographers. In fact, because Apple was able to negotiate such a low price from the hard drive manufacturer, the price of the iPod was cheaper than most places were selling comparable hard drives, so photographers were buying iPods, opening them up, removing the hard drive, and discarding the rest. Perhaps Apple could have engineered their own custom hard drive, but that wouldn't have improved the quality of the product.

Is that a good enough excuse?

Re: GPS

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

I took the introduction of the "location approximation" feature within the iPhone maps application to be an indication that Apple are thinking the same way as yourself. I think most people can live with the functionality as it is. I understand that GPS uses more battery power and I'd guess most of us already have it in our cars.
I'd be surprised if GPS was in the next revision.

Because we one "One gadget to rule them all"

[PortHaven]

We're tired of...

"Three PDAs for the Elven Lords
Seven cell phones for the Dwarf Lords and their halls of stone
Nine MP3 players for the

Three Cell Phones for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven PDAs for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine MP3 players for Mortal Men doomed to die,

We want...

One Gadget the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Gadget to rule them all, One Gadget to find them,
One Gadget to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

***

(ie: I don't want a separate cell phone, PDA, MP3 player, GPS and batman utility belt. Especially NOT when the technology is available to easily have all 4 in a single device. And the only thing stopping it from happening is BS marketing idiots.)

Re:Because we one "One gadget to rule them all"

[smoker2]

(ie: I don't want a separate cell phone, PDA, MP3 player, GPS and batman utility belt. Especially NOT when the technology is available to easily have all 4 in a single device. And the only thing stopping it from happening is BS marketing idiots.)

Who's stopping it happening ?
It's getting boring to keep saying this, but I've had all that for well over a year (and I'm not an early adopter [any more]). My HTC has all the things you quoted (except batmans belt) and I find it great. Ok, it runs WM5, but to be honest, I rarely come across any issues with that.
Once again, here are the features :-

Specification Platform - Microsoft Windows Mobile Version 5.0 - PocketPC Phone Edition Dimension - Typical: 108mm(L)x 58.2mm(W)x 18.4mm(T) - Typical: 150g with battery pack Processor/Chipset - Baseband: Qualcomm MSM 6275 - CPU: Samsung MSP4 Processor 400MHz Memory - Flash ROM: 128 MB - RAM: 64 MB SDRAM LCD Module - 2.8" 240 x 320 dots Resolution - 65K-color TFT Transmmisive LCD with white LED Back light - Sensitive Touch Screen HSDPA/UMTS/GPRS/ EDGE/GSM Functional - Internal Antenna - Dual mode HSDPA/UMTS and GSM/GPRS/EDGE - - HSDPA/UMTS - - Tri-band 2100 MHz and /850/1900 MHz - - GSM/GPRS/EDGE - - Quad band 850/900/1800/1900 MHz - HSDPA/UMTS - - UMTS: R99 compliant - - HSDPA: Release 5 compliant - EDGE/GPRS/GSM - - (E)GPRS class B - - Multi-slot standard class 10 - - WAP over (E)GPRS - - (E)GPRS indicator - - Coding Scheme - - (E)GPRS PBCCH - Global Roaming - Auto Band Switching - Handover and cell reselection between 2G & 3G - Audio Codec: AMR/EFR/FR/HR - Generic Service - - Call holding, waiting, forwarding, Call barring - - CLI (Calling Line Identity) - - SMS (Short Message Service) -- Display own number - - Network selection - - Cell broadcast -- Multi-party conference capability -- Phase 2+ Unstructured Supplementary Service Data - - Network Lock - - CPHS - USIM/SIM - - 1.8 / 3V of UICC - - USIM Application - - SIM Application Tool Kit - - Over the Air (OTA) programming - - Fixed Dialing Number (FDN) - - Abbreviation Dial Number (ADN) - - Security Pin 1 & 2 control Digital Camera Specification - Main Camera: 2.0 Mega Pixels CMOS - Second Camera: VGA CMOS - Lighting: Min. 5 Lux - "Continuous" Digital Zoom - Night Mode Keyboard/Button/Switch - Power button - 5-way Navigation d-pad - Send/Hands-free button - End button - Voice command / Voice record button - Two Soft-key button - Start button - OK button - Full-Scrolling Jog Wheel/Volume up & down - Back button - Camera capture button - Reset Notification - One bi-color LED for UMTS/GSM - Two respective -LEDs for Bluetooth/ WiFi notification - Vibration for notification - Notification by LED, vibration, sound, and message on the display Audio - Microphone - Receiver - Loud Speaker (Support Hands-free Mode) - Audio sampling rate - - Decode: 16-bits with 8KHz, 11KHz, 22KHz, 44.1KHz and 48KHz - - Encode: 16-bits with 8KHz, 16KHz - AMR/AAC/WAV/Wma/MP3 codec Connectivity & Interface - Bluetooth - Compliant with v2.0 - Class 2 transmit power - Supported profiles: - GAP (generic access profile) - SPP (serial port profile) - OPP (object push profile) - DUN (dial-up networking profile) - GOEP (generic object exchange profile) - ActiveSync (legacy application via SPP) - HSP (headset profile) - HFP (handsfree profile) - A2DP (advanced audio distribution profile) - AVRCP (audio/video remote control profile) - Service discovery application profile - SIM Access Profile - HID (human interface device profile) WiFi - - IEEE 802.11b/g compliant - - Internal WLAN antenna - Infrared IrDA SIR - Mini SD card slot - 1.8V/3V USIM/SIM card slot - Mini USB 1.1 full speed - External RF connector with cover Power - Battery - Removable and chargeable Lithium ion polymer - Typical capacity: 1500 mAh - AC adaptor - AC input: 100 ~ 240V AC, 50/60 Hz - DC output: 5V and 1A Stylus - Stylus with lock type mechanism Hanger Hole Accessories - Inbox - AC adap

Re:Because we one "One gadget to rule them all"

[Archangel Michael]

Problem with your "one" device are as follows:

1) It will necessarily suck at at least one function
2) It will most likely suck at many
3) It might even suck at all of them
4) If one item gets outdated, the whole thing is

I don't want an all in one. My cell phone camera sucks. My cell phone's MP3 player sucks. My Cell Phone's GPS sucks. They function at such a low level that I don't even use them. This doesn't even count the lousy battery life of the damn thing.

Re:Because we one "One gadget to rule them all"

[Lemmy Caution]

I do want them all. I don't like have a whole bunch of little devices all over the place. I don't put stuff on my belt which makes me look like a repairman, I don't want my pockets filled with so much stuff it looks like I'm wearing jodhpurs.

But, I will wait until convergence doesn't suck before I buy into it. So far, you're right: most every attempt to combine functions into a device has led to compromise. But I am confident that eventually, it will get sorted out. Perhaps by Apple (I'm a holdout, for a couple reasons), perhaps by Nokia or Treo.

I think music, voice call, PDA and GPS are all good candidates for near-term convergence at high-quality. Camera phones will be gimmicky little toys indefinitely, however - I can't imagine not needing a "good" camera. But the rest? It's really almost there.

Re:Because we one "One gadget to rule them all"

[rhade]

please, have you ever used windows mobile 5 for any length of time, I had it for all of 6 weeks on a dopod before throwing it back at the store in utter disgust, the keyboard didnt work half the time, it was frozen the rest of the time and it was atrociously slow and ive heard this repeated by 3 friends who have had different handsets with wm5. Now the keyboard and speed could be palmed off to bad hardware, but with some of microsofts recent os vomiting's I wouldnt go so far looking for a culprit.

Re:Because we one "One gadget to rule them all"

[Archangel Michael]

Well, unlike some people, and probably most geeks, I don't want gadgets hanging from my belt to start, including a phone. I love technology, I love playing with toys, most of these things are nothing more than toys. But I don't play with my toys all day long.

My wife and kids have all these toys, Camaras, iPods. In my life, I've needed a GPS probably once. And who walks around with a GPS every day? Are you that lost?

I hate most PDAs because they tend to change how they work every two years for no appearent reason, other than to change. Just when I figure out how to use it, it changes. Great example is Graffiti's changes between version one, which rocked, and version 2 which sucked so bad I had to get a mini keyboard to be functional, at which point the idea of a PDA became ... well a laptop, which was way more functional.

AND you never addressed obsolescence of one of the many devices. My cell phone has a 1.5 MPIX camera, which doesn't compare with my 10 MPIX one I actually use to take photos. Maybe its just that I've never seen an all-in-one that excels as such. Even multi function printers, which are decent, can't compare to discrete component parts.

I'm glad however that you're satisfied with less than state of the art, all-in-ones that when they break you just buy a new one. I wonder what you do when one of the parts breaks? Do you buy whole new unit or just a new standalone unit of what actually no longer works?

Re:Because we one "One gadget to rule them all"

[Lemmy Caution]

Oh, I think you misread me. I actually agree that, for many functions, convergence has not happened at an acceptable level of quality. And I do have separate devices at this point for those functions. I don't have GPS, though it would be helpful to me often (I do get lost a lot!) I have a separate music device and phone and camera. The phone has a crappy camera in it that I don't use.

Where I disagree with you is that I do expect convergence to happen fairly soon.

As far as obsolesence goes, I take it for granted, and before buying anything, I try to determine how long its useful life will be. Frankly, I could probably lease them rather than own them, because I think most of us do upgrade a lot of our techno-goods every few years anyway. But I would be willing to endure a little "oldness" in one function if the bulk of functions in a device were reasonably current. Upgrading one device every 3 years strikes me as less wasteful than, say, upgrading 4 devices every 4 to 5 years, even if the latter is on a staggered schedule.

Re:Because we one "One gadget to rule them all"

[Archangel Michael]

Lets say you get your all in one unit, and it has acceptable performance across all converged devices. Let just say it also has a camera, and the camera breaks. What do you do? Replace the whole unit, or buy a digital camera to replace the lost functionality?

I tend to buy things and use them till they are all used up. The car I drive is now 12 years old, I bought it new. I'll drive it till it no longer runs. I don't buy new cars every three years. Same with the toaster (six years old), fridge (five years old), washer(3 years), dryer, table saw(ten years), camera (five years), tv (18 years), printers (six years) and phones (cell phone is three).

About the only exception to this list is computers, but even then, I don't buy new top of the line units to start with. I tend to buy middle of the road, and beef up the ram. Currently, I'm waiting for the 32 bit software world to end before my next computer. While Linux and Vista (and XP, sort of) have 64 bit versions, they are haphazard implementations at best (well, linux less so). Why buy a system that can't address more than 3.6 GB Ram? And why buy a 64 bit system that has no 64bit apps?

Re:Because we one "One gadget to rule them all"

[PortHaven]

My HTC...

Can do everything but is bugging as all heck. And not integrated. It has next to no memory built in. And an inability to fully utilize memory cards. (ie; ring tones, etc). It has trouble being memory aware.

I have a Verizon XV6700 (HTC) I have a bluetooth GPS, mapping & driving software, guitar & violin tuning software. Tons of stuff.

But it is not very well integrated. Takes 7 clicks to close a program. Is buggy. Has no where near the capacity of my iPod. I would be happy if I could fill up a memory card and have it point to different ring-tones on the card.

The sad thing is I memory is dirt cheap. You can get gigs for $15-$40. But these stupid HTC and other Windows Mobile phones still ship with 32/64/128/256 mb of memory. Pittance...

They also should add...

[Tastecicles]

stereo Bluetooth /and/ standard 3.5mm jack
Camera (at least 5MP)
Mini4 USB2.0 w/MSD capability
extended capacity battery or the ability to plug-in portable power (Power Monkey via usb?)
voice recording
DAB radio, or at the very least, FM
Expandable memory via microSD

Why the original iphone didn't get all these features I'll never know, and if the next gen doesn't get it I'll not bother; I'll be sticking with my Sagem My401c.

Re:They also should add...

[TheRealMindChild]

Why the original iphone didn't get all these features I'll never know

Cost. The thing is already $400-$500. Imagine if you added all of those "features"...

Re:They also should add...

[T-Bone-T]

Why would you want a standard 3.5mm headphone jack? You wouldn't be able to take calls on the earphones. The jack still works for regular headphones already, so what's the problem.

Re:They also should add...

[MtViewGuy]

Given your suggestions, I think we'll see the following on the 2G Apple iPhone:

1) 3G high-speed data download support through HSDPA (which AT&T is implementing in major metropolitan areas).
2) Maximum flash memory increased to 32 GB, the same as the top-line iPod Touch.
3) Improved onboard camera with 4-5 megapixel capability.
4) Bigger capacity battery (though this will increase the thickness of the iPhone about 2-3 mm).
5) Improved transceiving antenna, very necessary for HSDPA connections.
6) Optional software GPS support, using software sold through iTunes Music Store.

Re:They also should add...

[-noefordeg-]

Well... Those options could be added after they make the iPhone useful =/
-Yes! I do have one 16GB iPhone right here... But it's still not as useful as an old SonyEricsson 810 I also have (right here).

Options I would like to see added:
-being able to be -EASILY- used as a modem for a portable computer via USB/BlueTooth (especially with the added 3G support)
-register as USB portable unit in Finder / Explorer
-drag & drop files to the unit from USB / BlueTooth
-same functionality as my iPod. Play music from iTunes on any computer you connect the iPhone too.
-drag music from any iTunes to the iPhone
-send / receive MMS
-use address book on my computers to send SMS / MMS from the iPhone using BlueTooth (I CAN do this with my SE 810)
-save e-mail attachments to iPhone's disk
-just be user friendly... For the last 5 years all my phones could easily use any mp3-file as ring tone. iPhone?!

iPhone -could- have been SO great, instead it's just "ok".

Re:They also should add...

[Anonymous Coward]

Noted. All these, and more, will go in the new model.

The cost will be $2549 at launch.

Re:They also should add...

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect the camera will be upped to 5MP as that will be the standard this year. There might be a second VGA camera on the front for video calls as well, as with many 3G phones on the market currently.

Don't existing iPod battery boosters work with the iPhone? They all use the same dock connector.

DAB radio is dead, and rubbish quality to boot, and something about them must be expensive because they're not that cheap still.

Voice recording should have been there, I'd expect it to come as a software update.

There should be bluetooth modem support.

Re:They also should add...

[The Only Druid]

"-being able to be -EASILY- used as a modem for a portable computer via USB/BlueTooth (especially with the added 3G support)"

So, you want to be able to tether it, taking advantage of the free broadband, despite the fact that they sell that feature for other devices at an entirely different price structure? Not familiar with the issue users have had with this plan on every other carrier?

"-same functionality as my iPod. Play music from iTunes on any computer you connect the iPhone too."

Your grammar here makes it impossible to tell exactly what you mean; are you suggesting that any computer should be able to read the iPhone, such that the computer's install of iTunes would be able to play the iPhone's contents' as a normal library source?

"-drag music from any iTunes to the iPhone"

You're asking for the ability to - contrary to the rules with all iPods - be synchronized with more than one library?

""

Re:They also should add...

[nosaj72]

The jack is recessed so that the majority of headphones wont physically fit into it, including Apples standard iPod headphones. You can get an adapter, which is basically an extender, but why??

Re:They also should add...

[T-Bone-T]

That sounds like a physical problem, not a standards problem unless a standard 3.5mm jack is required to have a certain amount of space around it.

Re:They also should add...

[keytohwy]

That's just it. I think this has been commented on by Apple when the iPhone was released. Given the internal mechanics, it wasn't possible to put the jack closer to the edge.

Re:They also should add...

[ColdWetDog]

You can get an adapter, which is basically an extender, but why??

Or, you can peel back the rubber sleeve on the iPod buds and it fits nicely. But yeah, Steve. Nice try. Next time quit obsessing about a extra millimeter of space and make the area around the jack just a tiny bit bigger.

Re:They also should add...

[dfghjk]

The problem is with the jack shielding that prevents virtually all existing headphone plugs from being used. Everyone knows that except apparently you.

Using standard headphones is something that a lot of people would think natural for the world's greatest iPod. Not that many people care about taking phone calls while listening to music. That's for the excuse though.

Re:They also should add...

[toleraen]

You're kidding right? The AT&T Tilt has: Stereo Bluetooth, 3 MP camera (with video recording), Mini4 USB 2.0, extended capacity battery, voice recording, and microSD, and I can pick one up for $300. Refurbed for $150.

Re:They also should add...

[dfghjk]

Considering all the features he listed are software, just why would Apple have to charge so much when their competitors are able to deliver many of these now without upcharge?

Re:They also should add...

[dfghjk]

Sorry, thought you were replying to a different post (which was all software features).

Re:They also should add...

[teh kurisu]

-being able to be -EASILY- used as a modem for a portable computer via USB/BlueTooth (especially with the added 3G support)

You'll find that most mobile phone contracts explicitly forbid the use of the data service with a PC. The O2 iPhone contract doesn't, however it does explicitly forbid the use of the SIM card in any device other than your iPhone.

Re:They also should add...

[IndieKid]

Apple managed to add a non-recessed headphone socket to the iPod Touch and that's a very similar device. I know there's more going on inside an iPhone, but I imagine there just wasn't time to design around the issue rather than it being an impossibility. Hopefully Apple will sort this out for iPhone v2, as although iPod headphones aren't terrible when compared with the ones Nokia et al bundle in they still aren't as good as a cheap set of Sennheisers.

Re:They also should add...

[keytohwy]

I agree, except again, I don't think they rushed release over a headphone jack. In the press conference/announcement, Apple said that this was a 3 year long project. But here's hoping that the future revs do address that issue. I'd like to get some of those Etymotics for mine. I have them for my iPod and they do kick ass.

Re:They also should add...

[TheRealMindChild]

Use your brain a little bit. Just because some other device X has all of these features for a price under the iPhone, that has very little to do with the ADDED cost of ADDING these features to the current design. Sure you CAN argue that designing it from the ground up can be cheaper, but tacking these on as an afterthought adds more cost, like it or not.

Think of it like code. You designed your app one way, adding x, y, and z features to a codebase that never anticipated doing such could very well be more expensive than rewriting the code to take these features into account.

Welcome to the real world.

Re:They also should add...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the funny thing about phone calls... you can be sitting there listening to music on your iPhone, but if your sister calls to tell you to get your ass down to the hospital because your dad just had a heart attack, she's not going to know that you're in your "I'm using my phone as an MP3 player and ignoring all phone calls" time.

You don't get to plan when you're going to take a call, they just happen, and if you're listening to music ON YOUR PHONE, you should be able to TAKE CALLS as they come in. That's why you have a phone. To make & get calls. That should be the first and foremost thing you can do with your phone, at any moment, regardless of what you're doing with it at any instant. Because everything else is of lower importance. Because it's a PHONE.

Get it?

Re:They also should add...

[toleraen]

Sure you CAN argue that designing it from the ground up can be cheaper, but tacking these on as an afterthought adds more cost, like it or not. And why wouldn't I argue that? How is adding a stereo Bluetooth profile to a PMP that already has Bluetooth an afterthought? Especially when they realized they couldn't design the 3.5mm jack to accommodate many types of headphones. I don't mean to rehash the "my phone has all these features that the iPhone doesn't have" argument that's been made 1000 times before, but given the amount of money spent on advertising, plus the amount of profit that's been estimated on each iPhone, I just fail to see how adding such common things like A2DP, voice recording, MMS, etc comes down to those features costing too much. So many other manufacturers did it, why not Apple?

Re:They also should add...

[Firehed]

I think it's mostly related to keeping the nice curve of the edge of the device. The Touch is a lot thinner so the curve along the edge is much flatter; recessing the jack with the iPhone allowed them to not have some awkward corner sticking out.

That certainly doesn't EXCUSE the problem, but I think it's a reasonable explanation. It drives me absolutely nuts, especially given the low durability of the stock earbuds. Easily remedied by a $1.75 adapter from Monoprice so not all lost, but it still means I have to carry around a stupid adapter around with me that sticks out of the top of my phone like a two-inch antenna. As little as the style of the device means to me, even I'm bothered by a solution that ugly.

Re:They also should add...

[twitchingbug]

I don't think Apple could put the headphone jack on the bottom of the unit (like the Touch) because of the electrical interference from the antenna. This is just a guess - look at all the old iPod accessories that aren't shielded properly. Notice whenever you plug your phone into one of those devices it asks you if you want to turn the phone signal off or not. The Touch has it's WiFi antenna on the top of the unit, so the jack can sit flush on the bottom next to the dock connector. Moving the jack south on the iPhone, would require the antenna to move to the top of the unit - maybe this wasn't possible.

Re:They also should add...

[SpryGuy]

The things that are preventing me from buying an iPhone:

1) Want faster than EDGE (3G)

2) Want more memory (16GB is bare minimum, 32GB preferable)

3) Real GPS would be very nice

4) Full Bluetooth abilities

5) Better camera with flash (megapixes doesn't matter to me as much as photo quality and ability to take photos in low lighting conditions, etc)

SOFTWARE-wise, I'd really want to see:

1) Rotatable keyboard and more consistent support of rotation and gestures across all aps

2) Multimedia texting support (including ability to 'text' a pic you just took to a friend, with auto-resizing)

3) Better email sync (including Windows Live Mail, including syncing the SENT folder back to your PC), better calendar syncing, and better bulk email handling

4) Ability to shoot video with the camera (mpeg, not JUST "quicktime" please)

5) Copy/paste, including from web pages into emails, to/from address book, etc.

Re:They also should add...

[Vegeta99]

Oh, and while you're at it, the HTC TyTN II actually supports video calling with a front-side VGA camera (The wonderful bastards at AT&T decided to remove it from the Tilt)

Oh, and the SDK doesn't cost jack. You can run any program you damn well please, even if all it does is open up 10 copies of IE and run up your data bill. You can also (easily) replace the OS with a simple, 30-second SPL-unlock. The Bluetooth stack works great - all it takes to tether is to pair the devices and select "Bluetooth" in Internet Sharing.

Alas, no 3.5mm headphone port.

Re:They also should add...

[T-Bone-T]

What exactly is a standard headphone jack, including casing?

"Not that many people care about taking phone calls while listening to music."

It is kind of hard to not care about phone calls when the phone is ringing instead of playing music, don't you think? The iPhone is even really nice about it, fading the music out, ringing, and then fading the music back in. I don't mind using the supplied headset. It means I don't have to fumble around to answer the phone. Besides, who are you to speak for everyone? What evidence do you have to support your statement?

Re:They also should add...

[IndieKid]

As little as the style of the device means to me, even I'm bothered by a solution that ugly. That was my thought actually, it's odd that a device that prides itself on its looks (amongst other things) relies on an awkward solution for using third-party earphones!

Re:They also should add...

[MtViewGuy]

1) Want faster than EDGE (3G)

Very likely with 3G HSDPA support.

2) Want more memory (16GB is bare minimum, 32GB preferable)

Very likely given that Apple has bought a bunch of high-capacity flash memory lately.

3) Real GPS would be very nice

Possibly with the new antenna but only by downloading software from the iTunes Music Store.

4) Full Bluetooth abilities

Very likely, especially since more states are requiring hands-free cellphone operation in a car.

5) Better camera with flash (megapixes doesn't matter to me as much as photo quality and ability to take photos in low lighting conditions, etc)

We could see that, but it really depends on how much more battery capacity is available.

WishList

[pinkocommie]

1. AutoFocus/Flash for the Camera
2. 3G
3. GPS

and I'm set, getting rid of a bunch of electronics for just one device :D
What else do you guys think could be added?

Re:WishList

[Kostya]

I'm with you on the camera. My iPhone has become my primary camera just because it's always with me--even though the quality sucks. If they could boost the resolution, get the focus and color quality a little better, add a flash--all of that would be really nice. What I would really dig is if you could shoot quicktime with it. All of my point-n-shoot digital cameras shot video in quicktime. I'm really surprised the iPhone doesn't shoot any kind of video (even the little 15-30 second clips).

I know everyone complains about EDGE, but I hope the 3G layers on top of the EDGE support. You can get EDGE just about anywhere--even if it is dog slow. Sometimes that's really handy.

For me, more memory and a better camera would be my main selling points. I want fast access, but I usually make do with EDGE. I suppose I'd change my mind if I saw what 3G could be like on an iPhone ;-)

Re:WishList

[TheRaven64]

I know everyone complains about EDGE, but I hope the 3G layers on top of the EDGE support. You can get EDGE just about anywhere--even if it is dog slow. Sometimes that's really handy. Maybe in the USA, but not elsewhere. Most of Europe skipped EDGE and went straight to UMTS and is now moving to HSDPA. In the UK, O2 (who got the exclusive deal for the iPhone) quickly rushed out EDGE in London, but not anywhere else, meaning that the iPhone has to fall back to GPRS in most of the country. My current phone support UMTS and the network has pretty good coverage - I only occasionally have to fall back to using GPRS, and I really notice the different (50KB/s downloads with 200ms ping times become 2-5KB/s downloads with 2s ping times). My next phone will probably support HSDPA, jumping the speed up and the latency down another order of magnitude.

Much of the benefit of a decent connection is lost with an iPhone though, since you can't use it tethered. When I'm travelling, I keep my phone in my pocket and use it via bluetooth from my laptop or Nokia 770. The horrendously crippled bluetooth stack on the iPhone doesn't support this, however.

Re:WishList

[ISoldat53]

Add A heart rate monitor add on and you have a killer trainer.

Re:WishList

[Kostya]

The horrendously crippled bluetooth stack on the iPhone doesn't support this, however.

Gosh, I had forgotten all about that ;-) I had originally hoped to use my iPhone to connect my MacBook to the internet while roaming about. There turned out to be no way to do it. But in the end, I stopped taking my MacBook around with me so much, as I could just about everything I really needed with my iPhone. Any time I needed my MacBook, I almost was always near Wifi ... so I guess I just forgot about the problem for the most part.

Re:WishList

[Maserati]

The next app I want to see for the iPhone is going to be one that fully controls all the possible camera settings, f-stop, exposure time, light levels, color balance, etc. I don't know how much control the camera in the current iPhones has, but at some point in its development I want full control over every fiddly little parameter on the camera. Presets for outdoors, presets for indoors, presets for taking great shots in a stadium environment... it'd be grand.

Re:WishList

[NeutronCowboy]

And in the meantime, you forget that the most critical part of a camera is the lens. All of your settings are completely irrelevant when the lens is incapable of capturing a clean image to begin with. If you want great-looking pictures, you'll want a dedicated camera. The physics just don't work out in a cell-phone camera.

Re:WishList

[Anonymous Coward]

A can opener?

Re:WishList

[evilninjax]

0. Adobe FLASH support

under "actually possible/likely" :

Cut & Paste
Multiple delete emails
EMPTY delete emails button (why do i have to delete every email twice?)
MMS
SMS Turn off autocorrect option

Re:WishList

[Maserati]

True enough, I just want the most possible out of the built-in camera.

Re:WishList

[pinkocommie]

Most people are fine with decent looking picture, its to replace a point and shoot pocketable camera not to replace the camera you take when you want to store memories - think of it as the camera you'll take on a night out on the town vs one you'd take to a wedding / birthday :)

Re:WishList

[sacrilicious]

... to that wishlist, I'd add "support for bluetooth keyboards", and "usb port, supporting mounting the iphone as a disk and transparently exchanging data with it". And if the iphone doesn't have the following (and I'm not sure), I'd also add "bluetooth DUN support".

Re:WishList

[Anonymous Coward]

On the software side:

1. Copy and paste. Though admittedly, I can't readily think of an elegant solution to it offhand that works within the interface and doesn't interfere/alter other functions.
2. Ability to open web page links in a new window.
3. Cached pages. It's bothersome at times to open a new page, then go back to the first only to have to wait for it to reload.
4. Ability to send images from Safari to the photo album.
5. Ability to leave comments in the YouTube app. (Can't say I really want this, but figured it would an obvious update to it.)

Re:WishList

[davesag]

add a mail app that supports filters and smime encryption, a way to copy and paste, a way to search your calendar and phone book, skype and ichat.

d

16GB _exta_ memory?

[IBBoard]

With that much extra memory on top of how much it already has it'll have way more memory than my desktop machine (8x or more). They're not trying to make the iPhone interesting for Microsoft developers and adding a version of Boot Camp to it, are they? Even with 16GB+ I'm not sure I'd want to try and run Vista on an iPhone.

Re:16GB _exta_ memory?

[daveime]

Nope, they just want to make sure it will run Firefox ;-) *Ducks head to avoid the moderators points shot like flaming arrows*

Re:16GB _exta_ memory?

[sxeraverx]

That's +16GB Flash ROM, not +16GB SRAM (or DRAM? I'm not sure which the iPhone uses). They're both called memory, but using a Flash ROM as your main memory, no matter how much of it you had, well, you just plain wouldn't want to do it. Imagine Vista on 1MB of RAM. Unless my irony detector is broken, in which case you already knew that.

Re:16GB _exta_ memory?

[IBBoard]

I assumed it meant storage, but had never paid much attention to Flash being ROM. It was meant as irony, but more in the "memory? don't you mean storage" way of the usual mis-usage (e.g. my parents and grandparents using them interchangeably)

Re:16GB _exta_ memory?

[SpryGuy]

My music collection *alone* is just over 16Gb. If I also want to store images and video on it, I'll need at least 32Gb.

Thought I'd settle for 24Gb.

16Gb is the barest minimum, and would force me to have to pick and choose what music I carry with me.

Re:16GB _exta_ memory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a shame.

Why GPS on you cell phone.

[LWATCDR]

Because a GPS that network enabled is a great tool.
Traveling? Want to find a restaurant? Just use your cell with GPS and you can even dial the number and make reservations. Yes auto GPS systems have that but do you carry them in your pocket? When you travel you may or may not have a GPS in your rental car. Yea you could take your portable one with you but what if you don't have a rental car and are just walking? What if you are riding with someone that doesn't have a GPS?
Again it is always in my pocket. It is the same reason that I have web browser on my phone and a media player.
It is always with me and it is small and light.

Re:Why GPS on you cell phone.

[dotmax]

i guess... it [let's find a restaurant!] speaks to what seems to me to be a pretty narrow market/lifestyle segment. Maybe for the itenerant road warrior type. For me, i know every decent restaurant within miles (west surburban chicagoland) or at least enough. ditto in Chicago. Heck, if i'm in chicago and i want a place to eat, i just need to walk no more than five minutes from any location i'm likely to be and i'll come upon a great place to eat. Seriously: how fucking pathetic are we that we can't find a place to eat without hundreds of dollars of electronics and 10 billion dollars of supporting infrastructure to guide us?

I am quite sincere in my criticism and question. I just don't get it. It seems immasculating and trivializing. It sounds a lot like the old "you can use your PC to store recipes!! And Balance your checkbook (online banking not having been invented)". Oooh, i know, it'll free us from ... looking out the window of our car!

Sorry, it sounds like feature-creeped bullshit. Of course, i am a luddite (with a macbook pro, who runs an atom smasher) on a bicycle most of the time.

Re:Why GPS on you cell phone.

[pete-classic]

You never meet up with friends at a place you don't know? Or change Doctors? Or have a job interview? Or an unexpected change of plans?

If the Yellow Pages, or whatever you're using, is doing the job for you that's great. But I don't see why you should pooh-pooh a tool that other people (such as myself) find so damn handy.

-Peter

Re:Why GPS on you cell phone.

[DrgnDancer]

If you happen to live in the city you were born in (or have spent years in), and don't travel; then I can certainly see your point. If I still lived in New Orleans, I could get to any of 3 dozen excellent restaurants without a GPS, and possible after having been blinded in a horrible street car accident. I don't live in New Orleans anymore though, so i find my GPS occasionally useful for finding well hidden locations in my new town. Recently when I went to Houston for a few days on business I found it invaluable. It guided me to everything from the hotel to the great downtown restaurant a local suggested. Let me tell you... Houston is a mazed without help. I don't use my GPS daily, and possibly not even weekly, but it is well worth the couple of hundred bucks I spent on it.

Re:Why GPS on you cell phone.

[LWATCDR]

Yea in my hometown I know my favorite places to eat. And no I don't need my GPS.
But here are some examples of when I have used my GPS. My wife got us involved in a book club. The meeting was at a members. I had the address so I had no real problem finding it.
I was in the Next town over and needed to find an ATM. GPS works just great for that.
I stopped to get gas in that same town and an older gentleman asked me where the nearest Walmart was. I had no idea until I took out my Cell phone and did a search and found it for him and told him how to get there.
About a month ago My wife and wanted to go a Japanese museum about seventy miles to the south of us. Searched for it and put it in the GPS and got there with no problem. When we got there my wifes camera's batteries died. The museum shop didn't carry batteries. Searched for a Walgreen's near by and went and got fresh batteries.
Yes I didn't have to have a GPS. But because I did it was a lot easier to find what I wanted and I didn't have to drive around looking and waste time and gas.
People don't have to have a GPS. They also don't have to have a Cell phone, Computer, Ipod, or TiVO.
But once you have one it is just way too useful.
I can think of lots of other uses for it that current GPS systems don't offer.
But yes if you live in Chicago and can manage to commute just about everywhere on a bike you may not need it.

Re:Why GPS on you cell phone.

[NeutronCowboy]

And for that, the cell-tower based positioning system works just fine and dandy. Google rolled it out on its latest googlemaps iteration, and its approximation is all I need to find where I am and where I need to go. The only time I actually need GPS is when I'm so far out in the boonies that there is no cell-phone coverage. And at that point, I really just need accurate GPS locations.

Quite frankly, I don't see the need anymore to pay monthly fees for GPS systems. The cost does not justify the marginal increase in utility over cell-tower location systems.

Re:Why GPS on you cell phone.

[LWATCDR]

Why in the name of heaven would you have to pay a monthly fee for GPS when you don't have to with the cell tower system? The GPS receiver in the phone doesn't place any load on the cell network so there shouldn't be a charge to use it?
As far as cell tower based positioning. I would bet that I am often in an area where I only can see a single tower. I have heard mixed results with it.
GPS is not expensive. My $100 cell phone has it as does my wifes $60 cell phone.
Their really should be no extra expense and GPS is better than Cell tower location systems. If Apple does put in GPS and allows developers access to it then You may see some very interesting applications.

Re:Why GPS on you cell phone.

[aaarrrgggh]

The problem with that logic is that the updated Google Maps application is good enough for 95% of the population. It ultimately provides much better functionality than my real, dedicated GPS unit. Garmin and their kind destroyed the market with overpriced map updates and locked regional maps.

A dedicated unit is great when you need better accuracy of course, or where you want to track waypoints and such, but that is a much smaller market.

Re:Why GPS on you cell phone.

[sjbe]

Why in the name of heaven would you have to pay a monthly fee for GPS when you don't have to with the cell tower system? I wouldn't. I have a standalone GPS and have no need to pay a monthly surcharge. Depending on your phone you can get a bluetooth gps receiver that for practical purposes is like your cell phone has GPS built in but without the battery drain. Plus I like to actually know where I am. The cell tower system, while better than nothing, rarely gets my location closer than a kilometer from where I actually am. That's not great for something that the whole point is to locate where you actually are. I can't complain about the price (free) but you definitely get what you pay for with that feature.

Re:Why GPS on you cell phone.

[LWATCDR]

but that is just it. The cell provider doesn't have to and shouldn't add a fee for GPS. I doubt that the IPhone providers will have to.

Re:Why GPS on you cell phone.

[sjbe]

The cell provider doesn't have to and shouldn't add a fee for GPS. I couldn't agree more. Though I'm guessing they'll try...

You should take a clue from Apple

[Kjella]

Isn't this a day early? ...and not present future events. Takes all the fun out of them.

Re: GPS

[peragrin]

the locate feature is absolutely useless to me. there aren't enough wi-fi access points to be any good.

Besides i don't want GPS built in. As GPS uses a ton a battery power. I want a Bluetooth, or other dongle that occasionally sends GPS data. Why can't I get a car dock, with a built in GPS receiver? Just plug the iPhone in I can listen to tunes, hook up the bluetooth to my car's bluetooth headset, and have driving map to go by all from one device.

Unfortunately the SDK, and Apple's EULA's prevent exactly that from ever happening.

GPS is the next wave of integration

[sjbe]

With that said, I don't understand why the hell people keep begging for GPS... Because GPS is a VERY logical addition to a mobile device. Arguably more logical than a music player for many people. Any business traveler would likely find a GPS enabled phone (with appropriate navigation software) to be extremely useful. I think the GPS is the next logical device to see serious integration into smartphones (after PDAs and MP3 players) because it is such an obvious fit for mobile users.

I have a Garmin nuvi 660 and a Nokia E70. Both are fine devices. But there are MANY times when carrying my GPS is impractical (basically anytime I'm not in a car) and having a phone with even a subset of the Garmin's abilities would be handy. I can do the google maps thing same as the iPhone, but it is not very useful especially compared with a real GPS. Personally I don't listen to much music but a GPS built in to my cell phone (again, with appropriate navigation software) would be a huge win for me. One of the reasons I did not buy an iPhone was because it didn't have any built in GPS capabilities and I found a way to get my Nokia to integrate (via bluetooth) with a compact GPS. Not a perfect solution but a good one. Should the iPhone get some good GPS capabilities that would make it a LOT more attractive to me.

Re:GPS is the next wave of integration

[Tony Hoyle]

The problem with GPS is the battery drain.. if you run it all the time expect your battery to die in a couple of hours.

It's great for in-car use where it's on power, but unless apple have found a GPS chipset that is able to work on much lower power than the current ones I wouldn't expect it in an iphone in the near future.

External GPS works - where you have a separate battery and you plug it into USB. Then when the GPS dies at least you've still got your phone. That would mean apple enabling the USB port on the phone though..

Re:GPS is the next wave of integration

[sjbe]

It's great for in-car use where it's on power, but unless apple have found a GPS chipset that is able to work on much lower power than the current ones I wouldn't expect it in an iphone in the near future. No argument on the battery drain, though generally if I'm outside a car I generally don't need the GPS to be active for many hours in a row. If I did I probably would be carrying a dedicated GPS device anyway. One specially designed for hiking or whatever else I'm doing at that time. I think an integrated device would work if you could easily turn the GPS functions off when not in use.

Re:GPS is the next wave of integration

[ColdWetDog]

The problem with GPS is the battery drain.. if you run it all the time expect your battery to die in a couple of hours.

Not so sure that is really the entire issue. I have a bitty little Holux GPSlim 240 that I use in conjunction with my cameras. It's about 2 inches long and weighs next to nothing. With the bluetooth transmitter going I get about 8 hours off of some (unknown) little lithium battery inside the unit. Of course, the power management problem inside the iPhone is extremely complex and has been subject to countless hours of engineering work, but the new chipsets are pretty darn frugal.

That said, it would be pretty easy for Apple to make an iGPS module for the iPhone, iPod, iThis or MacThat and get the software integrated into OS X for a pretty good experience. Of course, the best place for a GPS receiver is up as high as you can get it rather than in your pocket, so perhaps Apple should work on the iBeanie. You there, Steve?

Re:GPS is the next wave of integration

[ncc74656]

The problem with GPS is the battery drain.. if you run it all the time expect your battery to die in a couple of hours.

OTOH, you wouldn't have it on most of the time. I have a Bluetooth GPS receiver that I use with a Treo 650. For the most part, it only gets used when I'm out of town in an unfamiliar area. At home, you're less likely to need it, so you'd switch it off. On the road, you'd just need to remember to charge it daily (or whatever) instead of every few days.

Re: GPS

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

I don't have an iPhone, but according to the Apple FAQ:

How does the Maps location based service (LBS) work?
LBS provides your approximate location using information based on your proximity to known cellular network towers and Wi-Fi networks (when on and available). The more accurate the available information, the smaller the circle identifying your position on the map. The feature is not available in all areas. Known Wi-Fi networks are predominantly in urban areas. In order to provide your location, data is collected in a form that does not personally identify you. If you do not want such data collected, do not enable the feature. Not enabling the feature will not impact the functionality of your iPhone.

I'm assuming you have cell towers near you. Sure, when driving you'll need more accurate information than the LBS provides. But on foot, a map of the surrounding area should be good enough for most.

FCC approval ?

[Builder]

Has anyone seen an FCC approval filing for this yet ?

Surely since they had to pre-announce the first iPhone to protect against the FCC announcing it for them, we could expect to see a similar request before a 3G iPhone comes into being ?

Re:FCC approval ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!

Last time it took months between submission to the FCC and approval. Somehow, I doubt they would begin manufacturing in volume prior to receiving approval for sale. It makes for expensive rework.

Re:FCC approval ?

[Mountaineer1024]

FCC ratification only matters if you intend to sell your device in an area where the FCC hold sway. Like North America.
If you instead intend to sell your device in Europe, Asia, Australia etc who cares what the FCC say?

getting lost

[dotmax]

It seems to me, barring a few specific places, that it takes an act of will to get lost in a modern city. Again, we're integrateing hundreds of dollars of technology with a multibillion dollar supporting infrastructure to replace a FOLDED PAPER MAP that we might need to use for TWO MINUTES EVERY THREE YEARS. This statement will be true for 90%+ of all pedestrians and drivers.

Society of idiot feckless pussies. We are that.

Re:getting lost

[bit trollent]

So you know how to get from 2500 Bumblefuck Dr to 234 Martin Luther King Blvd?

No? Well that's ok because you have a big ass folded map in your pocket.

Re:getting lost

[ceoyoyo]

Well, the multibillion dollar supporting infrastructure is really for blowing stuff up, so the lost-pedestrian market is just a bonus.

GPS enabled maps are incredibly useful. However, I agree, I purposely don't use my GPS for tasks that I should be able to do without.

Re:getting lost

[NeutronCowboy]

Talk to me again when you travel every week to a new city in a new state. Maps on my cell phone have been a godsend for this situation, and paper maps are completely unable to even approximate the usefulness of google maps on my blackberry.

The only thing that's feckless in your scenario is the assumption that 90% of all people never travel outside of their hometown.

Re:getting lost

[dotmax]

Guess what: i'm right. 90% of people rarely travel outside their regular, established patterns. Amazing and true! Feel free to hit the DOT website for confirmation.

3G not when I'm in the middle of nowhere

[stokessd]

I'm one of the people who doesn't live in a congested city here in the US, so my expectations of actual 3G connectivity are pretty low. So until the network gets built out to the point that I have hope of 3G other things drive my excitement about future iPhone developments. Like:

- Sending and receinging MMS messages (where's the friggin pictures?!)
- A native calculator that doesn't suck (RPN please)
- Notes and to-do's that sync with my computer
- an instant messaging client (Apple have you heard of this program called iChat?)
- Flash support so I can finally have the real internet in my pocket (contrary to the advertisement's claims, I DO NOT have the real internet in my pocket). If you think you do have the real internet in your pocket, try visiting a car company web site with your iPhone.

A camera with a lens that size will never be worth a damn, so I don't have much hope of better picture quality.

Sheldon

Re:3G not when I'm in the middle of nowhere

[pngwen]

Two of the items on your list are available if you jailbreak your phone.

1. RPN Calculator: You can run emulators of the HP15C, (and the 12C and 16C for that matter). These are native apps, so they run at top speed, that is to say, faster than the original calculators. The touch screen interface is quite lovely for these calcs, and the best part is, HP fans already know them!

2. IM Client: Apollo is a wonderful chat client which I use all the time. You can also install BitchX to IRC from the terminal, or you can install an iphone version of colloquy.

Just thought I'd point those 2 out. Enjoy!

GPS is incredibly useful

[sjbe]

it [let's find a restaurant!] speaks to what seems to me to be a pretty narrow market/lifestyle segment. Maybe for the itenerant road warrior type. For me, i know every decent restaurant within miles (west surburban chicagoland) or at least enough. ditto in Chicago. You don't sound like someone who travels much. If you never leave the area where you live, no a GPS isn't going to help you much. But most of the population travels at least occasionally and some of us travel quite a lot. I have a Garmin nuvi which I use all the time to find places to eat, hotels, parks, intersections, offices and of course for directions. I travel a fair bit (both work and pleasure) and a GPS is extremely useful when I do. I also just moved to a new city and it made it MUCH easier to learn my way around. If I could get the same features in my phone that would be even more useful. I never need directions anymore, just a destination address. It's great that you live in Chicago where there are wonderful options for dining all over the place. But I can tell you most of the country isn't like that. Even in Chicago it's often hard to find something if you don't know the city. (yes I've been there many times) Can you get by without a GPS? Of course. But just like you can get by without a computer it's still pretty handy if you have one available.

Re:GPS is incredibly useful

[davesag]

The main reason I want the GPS is to geotag my photos when I take them. I travel a lot and I'd find it handy when using Google Maps too, but for me the attraction is in knowing where the hell I was when i took that photo... d

3G is no magic

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple isn't going to play it up much as the average consumer will have no clue.

Speed, you say? The iPhone is often slow on WLAN. I don't think a 3G network is going to make much difference. The problems are more in the speed of the processor.

All that aside, the iPhone is a very useful device, but it should be even better now that the SDK is out. Apple's canned software is great, but it only goes so far.

The only outward physical change I would want is to extend the touch screen to the top and bottom of the phone. This would make it easier to browse web pages.

Finally in Vermont?

[Mercano]

Does this mean we can finally get iPhones in the AT&T-less hinterlands of Vermont. AT&T doesn't operate any towers in the state, so they won't let you open an account with a Vermont address. I think Alaska is in the same boat.

Re:Finally in Vermont?

[ColdWetDog]

AT&T just bought CellularOne so it's here. AT&T Alaskcom has always been the dominant bulk microwave carrier but now they're dribbling their especial brand of incompetence to individuals.

In the market for a new phone and really not impressed with the various Treos, I picked up an iPhone. Great phone, finally a decent interface. A few major annoyances like the inability to sync notes from an OS X machine (???).

Too bad AT&T couldn't figure out how to keep both the iPhone and my wife's L6 running on the same account. One phone or the other would work, not both. Recommended alternatives - get another iPhone. Actual fix - dump the iPhone and back to the L6. Sigh. The lack of an accessible SIM card is really a deal breaker for me.

Re:Finally in Vermont?

[Mercano]

Must have been an old article I was reading then. So, this makes Vermont the only state without iPhone service and the only state that President Bush hasn't visited while in office. Guess which one I'm broken up about. (Hint: it doesn't rhyme with "smush.")

Re: GPS

[Tony Hoyle]

Most cell towers don't have accurate information - from your quote "the feature is not available in all areas"

Every time I've used it it's either said no data was available or drawn a huge circle around the city I'm in - that's completely useless.

GPS via Bluetooth

[sjbe]

Besides i don't want GPS built in. As GPS uses a ton a battery power. I want a Bluetooth, or other dongle that occasionally sends GPS data. Why can't I get a car dock, with a built in GPS receiver? That's why I bought a Nokia E70 instead of an iPhone. This device from Garmin might do what you are looking for. Other manufacturers make similar devices if you don't like that one. Not available for the iPhone yet though.

I would say though that if you are going the separate device route AND only going to use the GPS in the car, you might just consider getting a stand alone GPS. I have one for driving and it works brilliantly. Integration with my phone would be nifty but isn't really necessary if you just use it in the car. If you plan to use the GPS outside a car though I'm totally with you.

** Because it's sexy...and cool

[scuba_steve_1]

Why do iPods outsell other MP3 players? You can tout their UI or iTunes, but I honestly believe it comes down to the fact that they look cool and, perhaps more importantly, many folks who buy them are trying to also make a fashion (or cultural) statement. No longer does one need to have an opinion on individual issues...or evaluate the superiority of a specific product. No...all you need to do is grab a brand and slap it on your forehead.

Someone mentioned that the iPhone is essentially a sexed-up Treo. As a long-time Treo owner, I very much disagree. It isn't even close to a Treo...at least in terms of functionality.

I love my Treo. Is the PalmOS dead? Almost certainly. Is the Treo hardware innovative? Not anymore. Not even close. So why do I prefer the Treo over an iPhone? Countless reasons, 3G and multiple carriers aside (and those are fairly large issues to set aside).

Start with the fact that I can install whatever software I want on my Treo...and do - MP3 players, streaming internet radio players, video players (and recorders), a JVM, games, eBook readers, an RPN calculator, PDF readers, DocsToGo to both view AND create Microsoft Office documents, third-party phone dialers, third-party web browsers and email clients, third-party IM clients...whatever I want...and they are not AJAX applications. They are rich client-side applications with access to the full range of phone functionality.

Memory is another issue. How much RAM does an iPhone have? My Treo? It has infinite storage...since it accepts SD cards. I just came back from vacation...and I brought about 30 hours of video, including full length movies and content from my TiVo. I also brought several thousand MP3s and hundreds of eBooks. SD cards are dirt cheap and extremely portable...and essentially allow you to have infinite storage on the go...and obviate the need to upgrade every time that you have gigabyte lust.

Is the Treo UI sexy? Hell no. Sure, you can change it in many ways with third-party applications, but in general, the iPhone kills it in this regard...but the UI is also very FUNCTIONAL. I can enter an appointment in one click, have a global find function, can cut and paste, can search for a contact by typing a few letters and have it match either first name, last name, occupation, or company (using TakePhone). I can delete (or mark read) multiple email messages at once. I have a real keyboard with tactile feedback and ten other fully programmable hard buttons...and a D-pad. I have utility applications that can change phone behavior in almost anyway - how lights flash for various events, when the phone rings, how it rings (for example, different ring tones for different people...or times of day). I even have a utility that allows me to send a specific SMS to the phone and have it perform any one of a number of functions, include lock, wipe memory, or wipe memory and SD card. The real issue is that the platform is OPEN for development. Applications developed with the iPhone SDK will be crippled...and will have to live in tightly defined sandbox.

Oh well, Palm is all but dead...but that doesn't make my 3G Treo any less valuable...at least until something better comes along. I will admit, the iPhone's 320x480 screen (50% larger than my Treo's 320x320 screen) looks AWESOME...and I would love to have it. Safari also beats the pants off of Blazer and Opera Mini...and WiFi would be killer in certain situations. Thus, I am keeping a very close eye on the next iPhone...and developments in the iPhone SDK world...as I am with Android. I seriously doubt my next phone will be Palm-based...and I am no longer on contract so I am ready to jump platforms...but I have just not seen the compelling reason yet.

Your mileage may vary.

BTW, whatever phone you have, this software is an excellent way to get video on to it - http://www.pqdvd.com./ I am not affiliated with them in any way. I am just a very happy customer.

cheers,
Steve

Google maps versus GPS

[sjbe]

I'm assuming you have cell towers near you. Sure, when driving you'll need more accurate information than the LBS provides. But on foot, a map of the surrounding area should be good enough for most. It's certainly better than nothing but in my experience the cell phone triangulation is pretty bad at figuring out where you really are. When I use Google maps on my cell phone it's pretty rare that I'm even within a kilometer of where it thinks I am. Takes a lot of searching to find your actual location. And I'm in a major metro area with pretty good cell phone coverage flat terrain and no large buildings in the way. Even with Wifi assistance it's still often pretty imprecise. Maybe I'm just spoiled by having an actual GPS but I'm not terribly impressed by the maps service through google. For the price I can't complain though.

Re: GPS

[Garabito]

Besides i don't want GPS built in. As GPS uses a ton a battery power Are you sure? GPS doesn't require the device to transmit anything.

GPS == LEASH

[sciop101]

SAFEGUARD AND REVEL PRIVACY!

GPS is a LEASH!

A cellphone is a communications device, NOT a personal location device. If somebody needs to find me, I will tell them. My choice!

Admittedly, an emergency location device is convenient, but best kept on a separate, tightly controlled system.

Will it have a Fly Eye camera?

[jmichaelg]

Forget 3G. I'm curious if it'll have Michael Uy's Fly Eye Camera. The patent is a couple of years old. I wonder if Apple is just sitting on the patent or if they're actively developing it.

A key benefit of the camera is if you're on a video conference, your image will be looking straight at the camera instead of off screen.

Maps versus GPS

[sjbe]

we're integrateing hundreds of dollars of technology with a multibillion dollar supporting infrastructure to replace a FOLDED PAPER MAP that we might need to use for TWO MINUTES EVERY THREE YEARS. When your folded map can:

• give you street level directions for every road anywhere in ALL of North America and Europe
  
• calculate optimal routes and detours
• find the closest Chinese restaurant in a city you've never been to before and give you its phone number so you can order ahead
• act as a speaker-phone via bluetooth for your cell phone
• play MP3s
• tell you that there is traffic ahead on the highway you are driving on
  

then MAYBE you'll have a decent argument about why maps are superior in every way. Maps are useful to be sure but GPS devices do a lot more than just show where streets are located. I use my GPS almost daily. Bet you I get a lot more value out of my GPS than you do from your map.

Re:Maps versus GPS

[dotmax]

give you street level directions for every road anywhere in ALL of North America and Europe
calculate optimal routes and detours
find the closest Chinese restaurant in a city you've never been to before and give you its phone number so you can order ahead
act as a speaker-phone via bluetooth for your cell phone
play MP3s
tell you that there is traffic ahead on the highway you are driving on

So. What.

I don't need any street directions to anywhere, ever. I can plan a 1200 mile trip after glancing at a map and arrive at my destination within 60 seconds of my eta. Including stopping for lunch, coffee, gas, cheese and a visit to the porn shop. done it, numerous times. Navigating from point A to point B anywhere in the U.S. is about the most trivial excercise imaginable.

Optimum routes and detours my sculpted muscular ass. If it takes a computer to figure that out for you, if your optimum route isn't instantly apparent the second you see your options, you're a moron, or the optimal route isn't significantly better than a similar suboptimal route. That particular function should be hardwired into your brain. You're not confused by those maze things on the placemats at Denny's are you?

You get more value out of your GPS than i get e out of my map?? Not a chance. Mathematically impossible. I get my maps free during a pee-breaks at state border welcome stops, or they get delivered for free to my door. Or i ask the person i'm visiting, or i click on "get directions" on the website. Hell, if i'm road tripping, the maps of the state are nailed to the wall at the rest stops. When they start passing out free garmin units with free maps, you let me know.

those other utilities you cite are bullshit. What are you gonna do if the freeway is clogged? Get jammed up in feeder traffic? yes, because your precious GPS doesn't know about traffic there. Or end up on some dum bass route because the routepicking software is stupid.

Play MP3's. Well, now i am truly defeated. Gosh. i wish i could play music in my car without a gps cellphone. dag.

Look, if you want a gadget, fine. Gadgets are fun. I have several. But they are toys. They are not, except for a tiny tiny minority of us, "tools" or productivity enhancers. They are electronic bullshit to amuse us. If you truly truly need GPS to manage your life, you're either completely fucked or you live out of your car and never visit the same place twice. In any case, i have yet to meet anyone who has GPS who says they need it.

Re:Maps versus GPS

[CoderDevo]

I ran into a close friend while walking downtown last week. I waved to him. By the time he crossed the street (1/4 block), I had already found an Indian restaurant close to our location, called them and reserved a seat for the two of us. As he asked if I wanted to have lunch together, I showed him the restaurant's menu, saying we already have reservations.

iPhone. Not even with GPS yet.

Re:Maps versus GPS

[fotbr]

I know quite a few people who "need" GPS -- but not in a phone. They're all semi-retired and enjoy offshore sailing. LORAN-C works pretty well, but suffers from atmospheric issues and magnetic storms. Pinpoint accuracy isn't needed, since charts aren't 100% accurate and most in-shore navigation is done via buoys and beacons -- if your navigation is good enough to find the island or port you want to visit, other navaids will do the rest.

Then there's the strange few who insist on celestial navigation "for tradition's sake", but refuse to teach anyone else -- I think they're putting on a facade and using the GPS when no one's looking :)

OT: Anyone know of a free online celestial navigation course? I'd like to learn it just to add it to the list of skills I'm not likely to ever need.

Re:Maps versus GPS

[sjbe]

You're a troll and not a very clever one but I'll have some fun with you.

I don't need any street directions to anywhere, ever. HA! Good one. Tell me another. I love hearing stupid people say stupid things. Only way your claim is true is if you never go anywhere. Are you immobile or incarcerated or just delusional?

I can plan a 1200 mile trip after glancing at a map and arrive at my destination within 60 seconds of my eta. First rule of quality trolling is to make your claims at least slightly credible. Otherwise you just sound like a dumbass.

You get more value out of your GPS than i get e out of my map?? Not a chance. Mathematically impossible... blah blah blah... When they start passing out free garmin units with free maps, you let me know. Mine was a gift. Cost = $0.00 to me. Oooohhh, you didn't think of that did you?

those other utilities you cite are bullshit. What are you gonna do if the freeway is clogged? Get jammed up in feeder traffic? yes, because your precious GPS doesn't know about traffic there. Here's a cluestick for you. Enjoy your next traffic jam! I'll just push a button and route around it. Oh but wait, you said you could glance at a map and arrive at your destination within 60 seconds of your ETA, miraculously avoiding every possible traffic jam and never taking a wrong turn ever. Sorry my bad. I forgot I was conversing with someone with psychic powers and an infallible sense of direction.

In any case, i have yet to meet anyone who has GPS who says they need it. Who said anything about need? Almost no one needs a GPS just like no one needs a cell phone or needs a television or any number of other things I could mention. But they are useful nonetheless. If you want to live with just paper maps, knock yourself out. The rest of us will enjoy living in the 21st century.

Re:Maps versus GPS

[dotmax]

let me rephrase, since the obvious intent of my sentence was too nuance for you to understand. I have never had the need for GPS mediated street directions while driving. Hope this helps. Troll wise, suck it.

More free PR for Apple?

[InlawBiker]

Every time Apple sneezes they get press and a post on Slashdot. I continue to marvel at Apple's marketing expertise. They're being lauded now for releasing a 3G device a year late. Hey guess what - The AT&T site lists 6 other 3G smart phones, and 5 have GPS if you count Blackberry (which does not have 3G yet). That's just the Smartphones.

Personal anecdote warning:
I am an Apple fan and always have been. My wife tried the iPhone and hated it. I think her words were, 'This is the most overpriced, over-hyped toy I've ever used.'

who cares?

[nguy]

I already have a 3.5G phone with a full WebKit-based browser, multi-tasking, and full programmability. It has a standard USB modem, GPS, a full Bluetooth stack, and tons of software. I can use as a tethered modem, via Bluetooth, and even use it as a WiFi access point using 3.5G for Internet access.

The iPhone has crippled software, crippled hardware, and crippled contracts. There is no reason on earth to buy one.

Re:who cares?

[chord.wav]

Which one is it? Thanks.

Re:who cares?

[nguy]

A Nokia N95 (other Nokias to consider are the E90, the E61i, the N82, and the E51).

Nokia's Mac support is excellent, by the way: you get iCal and Address Book sync, and also bidirectional iTunes and iPhoto synchronization, over USB or Bluetooth.

Re: GPS

[jandrese]

No, but it requires a high power receiver. GPS signals are some of the weakest ones you can actually use with consumer gear and it takes a lot of work (battery power) to get them.

Worse, because GPS signals require so much work to read, receivers typically require several minutes to achieve a usable result from a cold start, so the option of leaving it off for the 99% of the time you're not using it is less appealing because staring at a busy cursor on your phone for 5 minutes sucks when you just want some quick directions.

That said, cell tower location approximation systems are pretty lame. I tried using one on my phone and in some areas (dense urban areas) it would do ok, mostly, but once you got out into the burbs your error bars start expanding rapidly. It's not completely useless (you can find the street name you're on and only have to look in the circle on your phone most likely), but compared to a real live GPS system it's rather unsatisfying.

3G is what Canada needs...

[sco_robinso]

Perhaps this will be what it takes to bring the phone into Canada? 2 of our 3 major providers are 3G (Telus, Bell), so it the 3G iPhone would make perfect sense as a starting point for a Canadian release.

It's almost cruel how little Apple has said about a Canadian release (nothing). They haven't even hinted, nor have Telus, Bell, or Rogers. Only recently have we gotten a sign a 'something' in that there's a "French - Canadian" language seeting in the new 2.0 software.

Sigh, I'll keep waiting.

Re:3G is what Canada needs...

[brunes69]

Rogers has HSPDA rolled out in many major centres already and is going to be doing so at a rapid rate this year.

Re:3G is what Canada needs...

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Telus and Bell are EVDO providers I think.
So, they're not getting it.
On the miniscule chance they do, I'm so hacking one to work on Verizon.

One more improvement needed

[jdb2]

If you search through the various Apple/iPhone forums, you'll find something that users
are particularly annoyed at : speakerphone mode, and the speaker in general. One of the major
problems is that its maximum volume is abysmally low. How hard is it or how much cost does
it take to put in a beefier microspeaker? Probably next to nothing. Are they trying to save
a few pennies? I'd like something ala the Qtek 9000. Not only does this thing have stereo sound
but it has about everything but the kitchen sink. If they'd just go with dual speakers on the iPhone
I'd be happy though.

jdb2

Re:One more improvement needed

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Two to four hours of 3G on this bad boy before the battery dies?

I hope the next iPhone is nothing like the Qtek 9000...

Re:One more improvement needed

[jdb2]

Note that I said I'd be happy if they only beefed up the speaker.
The sound quality of the ringer/speakerphone is crap compared to a high quality cell phone.
And, I think in the case of a "normal" cell phone, like a Motorola Razr, there's a lot less
room for the battery, yet the phone still gets a lot more than four hours on a single charge.


jdb2

from cities to the countryside

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with parent entry. Newer technologies like UMTS's built up step by step - from the largest cities to more rural areas. Same with HSPA (High Speed Packet Access), which is now available for 70% of Switzerlands population, but covers only a fraction of the country.

http://www.swisscom-mobile.ch/scm/wir_hsdpa-en.aspx

An alternative to iPhone...

[nullkill]

that does everything the iPhone plans on doing (and more):

http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/atttilt/

You can even change the system look and feel to have it look and behave like an iphone... for 1/3 the cost.

Re:An alternative to iPhone...

[YukonTech]

To bad you can't use it with itunes, the battery life doesn't compare, it probably freezes every couple hours....its about twice the size and three times the wieght, its butt ugly. The browser is Mobile IE (terrible browser), there are no multi touch capabilites.. Yea its just like an iphone..

Re:An alternative to iPhone...

[nullkill]

"can't use it with itunes"
      Wrong. You can sync your itunes to Windows Mobile 6.0 phones all day long; you just can't purchase music directly from the phone. (Alternatives exists for this as well though.)

"the battery life doesn't compare"
      true, but thats what happens when you need to provide power to a more feature rich phone. (But, when you simply can't get to a charger: w/GPS and wifi turned off, the phone can run for several days w/out going to a charger.)

"freezes every couple hours"
      I've had 2 freezes in the past week.

size and weight complaint:
      Yes, but thats the trade off for a full keyboard.

"Browser is mobile IE"
      you should have said, "Default Browser". The great thing about wm phones is you can customize to your hearts content. (Opera Mini is a readily available free alternative.)

"No Multi Touch"
      True, but the alternative is a keyboard, plenty of customizable buttons, and a standard touch screen. Sure, it doesn't have the same "ooohhh ahhh" that multi touch has; but its definitely more useful and customizable.

"Butt Ugly"
      Definitely your opinion. If you haven't held one in your hand though; i suggest doing so.

Re:An alternative to iPhone...

[MojoStan]

that does everything the iPhone plans on doing (and more):

http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/atttilt/

Everything except run iPhone OS, but I guess it's still an alternative for some people.

For those that don't want AT&T, their self-branded "Tilt" is really an HTC TyTN II (P4550/Kaiser). It's available unlocked and thru other carriers in other countries.

Re:An alternative to iPhone...

[Anonymous Coward]

"freezes every couple hours"
I've had 2 freezes in the past week.

this part cracks me up. you find 2 freezes a week acceptable? your standards are very low and you sound like you're still trying to convince yourself it wasnt a purchase

iPhone killer?

[e03179]

Wake me when the iPhone gets an 800x480 screen.

Re:iPhone killer?

[vallette]

Wake me up when the phone you reference is actually available

Re: GPS

[lars_boegild_thomsen]

My Nokia N73 - which I seriously do not like very much do just that and that s about the only thing I like about it :) It's ugly, bulky, the user interface is a horror story, the os is buggy - but when I get into my car it connects to my bluetooth gps receiver and my bluetooth headset - and the screen is big enough so the navigation actually works.

Available to public in Q3 or Q4?

[darrylo]

Don't get your hopes up, people. Even if you ignore the reports that say that manufacturing bidding is still ongoing, and assume that the "production in May" report is correct, "production in May" is likely test production runs. Add some time for working out the production kinks, and for building up stock, and you're probably looking at a Q3 release date, if things go well. Given the timing, my wild-*** guess is that Apple might be shooting for a "fall, back-to-school" release (August/September, maybe very late July). However, if bidding really is still ongoing, I wouldn't expect a new iPhone before Q4 (but I'd love to be wrong). I don't see Apple making any early announcements, either, due to possible Osbourne effects.

It's not like a hardware manufacturer can press a magic button, and fill up the hundreds of Apple/AT&T stores with new iPhones overnight.

Re:Available to public in Q3 or Q4?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if bidding really is still ongoing...

It apears that is not the case.

Re: GPS

[thatshortkid]

hear hear....

the only thing i find lacking in the iPhone is the lack of enabled bluetooth profiles. lack of a2dp on a music device just seems strange, i can somewhat understand not enabling the DUN profile (though i don't really see it adding that much more to their network throughput), and, most importantly, not having the serial port profile enabled just seems ridiculous on a device that's supposed to be a hub for other, separate devices.

I'm tempted by an iPhone.

[goldcd]

but there's just too much missing. Problem isn't so much it doesn't have 3G - it's the current clunky phone I want to get rid of HAS 3G (and for that matter the one before it)... I don't even use 3G that much, just a handy (if pricey) internet connection for my laptop when out and about. I (like many people) already own an iPod. I love my ipod. I carry it about everywhere with me - but I'm not going to buy an iPhone and still carry my iPod. Sooo if Apple wants to sell me an iPhone that I'll replace my 5G 60G ipod with, then well... I'd like some more memory. I'm not worried too much about the cost, just give me the option..please? 32Gig would at least ease the musical cull.. Then I'm running TomTom on my current phone, so well GPS would be nice on an iphone. Otherwise I'm going to end up lugging around my current phone as well as my iPod. I just get the idea that the iPhone is never actually going to deliver what I want. It's just going to be a continual drip-feed of features. If anybody is listening. GPS (with decent software available), 3G, 32G+, ability to install all manner of funky apps etc would sway me. Anything less just frustrates me (as the UI is so pant-dribbling gorgeous).

300mhz Celeron is faster

[cheekyboy]

I bet you running a real old PC 300mhz box in a low res screen 320x240 with win2000 or directx will have faster performance.

Any slowness is due to 50 layers of api calls/stack pushes, none direct frame buffers and probably slow REAL ram speed (not flash ram speed)

Sure the iphone has 8gig (RAM) but thats storage, not DRAM, if they put in 1gig DDR ram in there it would fly, but fast ram uses OODLES of power.

That's called "Word of Mouth"

[SuperKendall]

consider how it's not just marketing from Apple themselves, but from phone shops that promote it, and news media from Slashdot to the BBC.

Somewhere along the way you left the land of Marketing, and entered "Word of Mouth". This is simply undirected endorsements generated primarily by users who like the device - and there are many of them. Word of Mouth is a different force because it's a symptom of a product that works really well for people, unlike Marketing which is a force that tries to convince people of value in a product. Marketing can only succeed for so long before attributes of a product are well known, and then it must succeed on the merits. Word of Mouth is derived *from* attributes inherent to a device, and is thus an indicator of potential popularity in a way Marketing can never be.

Apple appear to be taking advantage that many people are unaware how almost every phone (even cheap ones) can do Internet access as standard, so they are able to promote it as a new and wonderful thing (even on Slashdot, I see this happening).

Apple is LEVERAGING the fact that until now, for normal people, internet access through phones kind of sucked. The web browsers certainly sucked. The mail clients kind of sucked. Platform stability often sucked. The iPhone is the first mobile device where if I want to look up something, and my computer is across the room or downstairs - I'll still use the iPhone because it's in my hand and will work just as well. Can any other device pass that test for 90% of the populace?

And it's not clear it has "succeeded" apart from in the sense of not flopping? Sure it's succeeded, but so has the Treo and many other phones, but if you mean been a success above all others, that's not clear at all to me.

Refer back to the very Word of Mouth that has you so mystified, where the iPhone gets press for coming out with a 3G model where no other phone does. Why is that not a big flashing neon sign that something akin to success may be occuring under your very nose?

If you look around success is very clear from the wide base of different kinds of people that use the iPhone unlike the far more technical userbase of previous smartphones. Just like the result of addition of one and one is not much of a mystery even before I cross over the equals sign, or an ill-written mystery novel gives away too many clues before the ending and you figure out who the killer is by page ten. Some people on Slashdot seem to delight in being oblivious to such clues as to growth of market, just as they have made a sport of rejecting things in the past like Blu-Ray and the iPod itself.

Very true, Palm's game to lose

[SuperKendall]

I've been looking at getting a Treo for years - the thing that stopped me was actually the keyboard, because all I ever really wanted was a Treo with a large screen and graffiti (Jot) support instead of a keyboard. And also (perhaps as a result of the keyboard) the Treo was always just a little too bulky to suit me, when I always loved the form factor of the classic Palm V.

But Palm never shipped that phone - Apple did. And so now I am an iPhone user. Palm abandoned the core of what made them great, lost their way somewhere along the path of mobile integration and schizophrenic PalmOS/Windows Mobile development.

And that is why you fail

[SuperKendall]

To understand, that is:

but I honestly believe it comes down to the fact that they look cool and, perhaps more importantly, many folks who buy them are trying to also make a fashion (or cultural) statement.

I'm sure you believe that. However, it's quite wrong.

For some people the iPod may be about fashion. But fashion is not an enduring force - fashion is fickle. By the very longevity of the platform, the iPod has shown there is something stronger than fashion at work. Fashion is also self-limiting - you can never reach a truly broad range of people by just being fashionable, because different people have different ides of what is fashionable. The iPod is used by many different segments of society, not all of them fashion conscious.

You are being just as superficial as the iPod buyers you scorn by not looking past the surface of the device to see what forces make it truly popular. You confuse the style of a product being sufficient to ALLOW use by the fashionable, with that being the reason FOR use. The iPod, no matter how shiny, is not a belt buckle.

I get pictures today

[SuperKendall]

I get pictures today - it's called email. If your friends do not have a phone that supports email, they need a new phone or you need new friends. Friends don't let friends use cell phone relics of the past like MMS.

Flash support so I can finally have the real internet in my pocket (contrary to the advertisement's claims, I DO NOT have the real internet in my pocket). If you think you do have the real internet in your pocket, try visiting a car company web site with your iPhone.

Have you tried those same sites with other phones that supposedly support Flash?

Where there is Flash a smart company always has another option. The real internet is accessible. Some people have driven off that path for too long now, and are facing a reality check.

Why better

[SuperKendall]

Versamail allows you to create/delete/and manage iMAP folders, and I can cut and paste. I guess you never needed either of those functions?

Actually no, how often are you REALLY managing IMAP folders on the phone? That's the kind of setup most people might do every few years (if ever), so we're not hurting for the lack of being able to change what is there.

As for cut & paste - I can quote email. I can send other people links to things. I can send images. Miss cut & paste? Every now and then, but not much and the other advantages far outweigh that seeming lack. It's never stopped me from doing what I wanted to do.

The address book integration is also better, though Palm's stuff along those lines was always decent.

Works if you hack it.

[SuperKendall]

People today are using network proxying from the iPhone to share internet connections with laptops. You just need to install SSH... wouldn't you rather use a network connection shared via WiFi anyway?

I live in Canada so SHOW ME THE iPHONE

[presidenteloco]

SHOW ME THE iPHONE
SHOW ME - THE iPHONE
SHOW - ME - THE - iPHONE

Yeah, my iPhone experience...

[hummassa]

is that it think it is between 1.5km and 6km (1 to 4 mi) from where it really is.

wifi

[Anonymous Coward]

WiFi is hardly a stall tactic. It's a critical feature to turn it from a phone into a platform. iPod Touch, anyone? All y'all really don't grok.

Re:wifi

[Bedemus]

You misunderstood my comment. I was referring to the presentation of WiFi as an alternative to the nonexistent support of 3G in the existing iPhone being a stall tactic.

Of course WiFi is extremely relevant for use in the enterprise, on corporate LANs/WANs, as a substitute for a bulkier tablet PC that doctors could carry in their coat pocket in a hospital, etc. The question asked was specifically "Now, if such large areas in the US can't justify 3G then how could they justify WiFi as an alternative?" I was simply looking to establish that it isn't a real alternative to 3G support for the consumer market on the basis of coverage area, but was being used to stall for time to address that issue (in the consumer segment). That has no relevance to WiFi's long-term viability for the platform as a whole.

Myths

[meehawl]

As GPS uses a ton a battery power

Actually, it doesn't - or doesn't have to. A recent firmware update to my HTC 6800 (Sprint Mogul) phone just enabled the A-GPS chip (and ~2 Mbps EVDO, very useful for tethering!). I have been testing it in several modes. In the full "Assisted GPS" mode, which narrows your location down to within a metre or so, the A-GPS does use more battery (if you leave it on) because it is pulling data down over the net connection. But if you select just basic GPS mode it becomes just a *receiver* and the power delta is not noticeable. The biggest energy hog continues to be running the backlight at a brightness sufficient to be seen clearly in strong sunlight, Now that will kill the battery dead within an amazingly short space of time.

Devil's advocate

[edwardpickman]

I know we're supposed to be trashing Apple but can't we throw them a bone here? They came out with an SDK package within the year and within 15 months it looks like they'll be making a 3G. Rather than saying how unresponsive they are I have to say they seem to be listening to customers. Unbundling isn't going to happen for a few years not because they are being mean but they have a contract so expect unbundling once that contract is up. People have gotten really impatient. It's new product give it time. I'm sure they will address 90% of the issues people have brought up. The other 10% people will have to live with. It's an expensive product so don't expect open source and total freedom. If you need that there are other products out there so it's unproductive singling out Apple. People complain "because" it's an exceptional product and and they want more. If no one wanted one it'd be a non issue. A year later there's still nothing like it. I don't see Microsoft coming out with a microPhone to compete with it.

No reason for YOU to buy one...

[weston]

The iPhone has crippled software, crippled hardware, and crippled contracts.

True.

There is no reason on earth to buy one.

False.

If your highest priorities are open hardware and an open software economy and network freedom out of the box, then yes, the iPhone is not the phone for you. But remember, those are your priorities, and it's entirely possible for someone with different ones to be significantly unhappy with the product that you're quite pleased with.

Re:No reason for YOU to buy one...

[nguy]

But remember, those are your priorities, and it's entirely possible for someone with different ones to be significantly unhappy with the product that you're quite pleased with.

I'd say there is no set of technical or functional priorities you might have that makes the iPhone the best choice.

False.

Pretor compares the iPhone against the E90, not against the totality of all other phones. Indeed: some people might reasonably prefer the iPhone to the E90. But for those people, the Danger Hiptop is probably a better choice than the iPhone. Alternatively, one of the Samsung touch phones is a great choice, too.

If you disagree, try to come up with a scenario in which the iPhone is the better choice; I can't think of one.

How to get a free 18gb iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

STEP 1 Sign up @ http://tinyurl.com/4vhywb STEP 2 Sign up for the FreeCreditReport.com offer STEP 3 Cancel your 7 day trial before it ends but now right away. To be on the safe side wait 3-4 days. If you donât cancel before your trial ends, then you will be billed 12 per month. (And I donât want that) STEP 4 Get 10 people to do the same. How this works? The site gets money from the offer site for every person that signs up. However, not everyone get enough referrals to get their iPhone because they give up. So 1 person here and there adds up and that is how they make their money. When it comes to advertisement, businesses shell out lots of money. Also, sometime people go past their trials because either they A. Like the service or B. Forget to cancel! Donât let B. happen to you.