Slashdot Mirror
Verizon's Challenge To the iPhone Confirmed
misnohmer writes "Verizon has just launched a new set of ads confirming the rumors of its upcoming iPhone competitor: 'Unlike previous Android phones, the Droid is rumored to be powered by the TI OMAP3430, the same core that the iPhone and Palm Pre use, and which significantly outperforms Qualcomm 528MHz ARM11-based Android phones that exist today. Droid will also be running v.2.0 of Android, with a significantly upgraded user interface. The Droid poses a different and more significant challenge to the iPhone than any other phone to date. The Palm Pre could have been that challenger, but it lacked the Verizon network, and users were unimpressed with the hardware. According to people who've handled the device, the Droid is the most sophisticated mobile device to hit the market to date from a hardware standpoint. When you combine that with the Verizon network, you've got something that is most definitely a challenger to the Jesus phone.'"
In other words, it lacks Apple Marketing and a slavish band of followers in the grip of the RDF.
I'm very sorry, but I can't find any more of substance in your post.
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Except that many phones on the market already are "IphonE killeRs". Just look at sales figures.
The comparison to "Ipod killer" is completely misleading - there, Apple are the market leader. To suggest the same applies for the Iphone is laughable, as well as showing gross ignorance of the facts. It's sad that once, Slashdot was a place to come to find people who were knowledgable about the industry. But it seems that for mobile phones, some people here know less about the market than lay people, who are out there enjoying their phones, without going "OMG I can check the Internet on my Iphone". They just do it, using a bog standard phone.
The phrase "Iphone killer" is nothing more than marketing spin. It's about as relevant as Apple referring to their new OS as a "OS/2 killer".
so you're a fat bastard who doesn't give a rat's ass about what other people want as long as you get yours. what a surprise!
-- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
What? The phone explodes whenever you do something it doesn't like?! Or just when a call is dropped?
However, this last summer I switched to AT&T because verizon's network was dropping my calls in my apartment
Let's face it, you switched to AT&T because you wanted an iPhone and didn't have a choice in the matter.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yes indeed. I'd have no issue with people saying that the Iphone was one of the earlier devices to have touch screen (I'm not sure about the app store - note that these were commonplace before, done by the networks, or just offered by any website; Apple's is only notable in its disadvantage, in that you can only download from there, and of course it gets spun as an advantage). All phones have introduced new features when they are released - that's how progress works.
But the way people talk about it on here, it's as if it's the only phone in existence; the only phone that introduced new features; as if it invented the whole idea of using a phone for Internet access or anything; and as if Apple were the number one, rather than being way behind Nokia and other companies. And if you disagree? Well, just look at the moderation on this story. (I always have to browse at -1 on Apple stories.)
You, sir, are a dumb fuck.
Nobody thinks that it is the only smartphone in existence or that it was the first touchscreen devices or whatever. Just like nobody here thinks the iPod was the first MP3 player, but it was the first one that was good enough and accessible enough to attain widespread consumer acceptance. Do some googling for "Less space than a Nomad. No wireless. Lame"--this is the same argument that has been going on for years. Hint, one side is completely fucking right and the other is completely fucking wrong--guess which side you're on.
Seriously, just go curl up with your HTC Pro and feel righteously indignant--but stop inflicting your stupidity on the rest of us.
The whole replaceable battery thing is not much of a concern for most people, they expect a phone to last more than a day in real use and the iPhone does.
For those that really draw a lot of power, there are a ton of external battery options, some cases that make the phone only a little larger. I'd far rather have that than a second battery, which I would never use and would be awkward to carry.
Note: The only time I've ever used an external battery is on international plane flights.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I thought the article looked weird, visually different from other Wash Post articles (e.g., much larger font). So I took a closer look.
Go to the sixth paragraph. The one starting with "The Droid poses a different and more significant challenge...". Look at the left margin. What do you see?
A word in blue, written vertically: "Advertisement"
That is not a real article by Michael Arrington of TechCrunch.com, it is an ad commissioned to him. The difference is that he is being payed to say whatever the sponsors want him to say.
Although sleazy this is legal because to the observant reader it is clear that it is not a typical article from that publication, and, heck, it even says openly that it is an Advertisement.
The advertising campaign isn't really hooking me. But none the less, isn't marketing to early adopters a viable strategy? You need to get a toehold somewhere. You have to get someone interested in the device and to look past Apple's marketing. And Apple is certainly marketing. They're not just sticking the product out there and letting it speak for itself.
Apple is marketing, but are doing so by showing apps you can run. With Droid it's just a list of things you supposedly cannot do on the iPhone, but I'm not sure these geek bullet points are really going to sway many adopters, early or otherwise. Wouldn't most people interested in that bullet list have already picked up a G1, or just about to purchase the latest generation Android devices from other carriers? Or heck, even the Palm which unlike the summary intimates is actually a great phone with decent hardware.
What Verizon needs right now is a commercial that tells a lot of people with contracts running out, "Hey, stick with us a bit longer because we have a great phone coming too!". That ad I don't think served that purpose. Breaking into a market for the first time like Apple did, they had to try and get early adopters on board - but Verizon needs more to stem the bleeding first, and woo the techno elite second.
I saw the ad for the first time on TV and let my wife watch it through without telling her anything. At the end I asked, what was it for? She had no idea. She did figure out they were probably talking about the iPhone but she couldn't figure out what the ad was telling her. If many people cannot even tell when it is an ad wants them to do, it's not a good ad.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley