Slashdot Mirror
NYTimes Speculates On the Next iPhone
Achromatic1978 writes "The NYT has a story on the next revision of the iPhone, and discusses what will become of the iPhone, now that the hype is starting to slow (Jobs goal for 2008 was ten million iPhones sold — as of the first quarter, only 1.7 million have left the shelves). The WWDC is the rumored release date for a next version, and Jobs has promised that this year will see a 3G iPhone released."
Given the ways Apple has crippled the iPhone it seems to me that a well designed open platform has the potential to blow them out of the water.
So how is Open Moko coming along? And are there other candidates that appear to be beyond the vapor stage?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The iPhone users use 30x the data of others. That's because Mobile Safari is about 30x better than the competition.
I use an iPod Touch (iPhone minus the phone) as a portable web browser. Some great jail-broken apps (helluv'a ebook reader), too. Amazing experience, yet with mind-boggling weaknesses, too (copy and paste, people???). I'm hoping Opera 9 is going to catch up, because there were other advantages to more conventional PDAs, but, Mobile Safari is just too good to go away from.
Too many believe that the next iPhone will be head and shoulders above the previous version, and are holding out before purchasing.
Until the new one's released, Apple is a victim of their own hype.
It would have helped if they had found some way to work with Verizon and other carriers. It will be a cold day in hell (or, at least until Verizon gets considerably worse and AT&T miraculously improves in virtually every area of their service) before I switch to AT&T.
The iPhone looks cool. It's the kind of gadget I'd probably be interested in. A lot of my friends agree. But of all the people I know that wants one, only one actually got one. Everyone else is waiting for that exclusive deal to AT&T to expire and has said they're not switching carriers to get one. (Or, for that matter hacking their phone, either.)
Why companies deliberately lock themselves into agreements with other companies like this is beyond me. Maybe it's working for them. But given how far it looks like they're going to miss their target, it kind of looks like it's not.
I've had service from all of the viable carriers in my area (T-Mobile is available, but there bad coverage makes them non-viable around here). The fact is that if you want to have a cell phone, then you're going to have to deal with a shitty company. They ALL suck.
As a result, I pretty much choose my carrier based on who has the phone I want.
As for the objections to getting stuck in a contract, all I have to say is WTF? If I'm going to spend $400 for a phone, I'm doing it with the intention of using that phone for at least a few years. And since we've already established that ALL of the carriers suck, I don't really see the advantage in being able to switch to a different one.
It makes perfect sense for AT&T to enter into an agreement like this. This makes them the sole provider of an artifically limited resource (service for an IPhone). Given that there is any demand at all for the IPhone, this can only mean good news for AT&T.
But why did Apple enter into this agreement? It artifically restricted their market to those who are willing to accept AT&T as a service provider. That will clearly send some potential buyers away to competing products. Why would you do that to yourself?
I can think of two reasons:
1) AT&T subsidized the development and/or production of the phones, thus offsetting the potential cost of lost business (one can only guess as to whether or not it was worth it).
2) Steve Jobs is a control freak who just LOVES any business model that includes any kind of vendor lock-in. Given the artificial limitations placed on software development/distribution for the IPhone, and similar behavior for every other product Apple has produced, I'd say this is a well-supported statement. I further think that Steve Jobs honestly believes that imposing arbitrary limits on his customers increases his hold on his market and hence improves overal profit, though in my opinion he is dead wrong (and I will point to the success of more open systems such as the PC and Windows (I didn't say "open," I said "more open") to support my position).
So that's why.
Until Apple gets another CDMA carrier,Verizon users will be SOL. Why support another technology when you can do GSM and get most of the world?