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.'"
The summary reads more like an advertisement for Verizon than anything else...
So what? It's on Sprint, it can roam on Verizon's network. The Pre isn't a challenger not because of the network, but because people were waiting for the much better HTC Touch Pro 2.
More to the point, WinMo phones like the TP2 remain years ahead of the competition in terms of functionality, but people are too stupid to use them.
It always makes me leery when you don't actually get to SEE the product they're advertising. On the one hand, they're promoting intrigue as to what it will look like, on the other hand, it may be a soapbox with buttons drawn on with Crayola markers and they're not sure of how the public will receive it's looks.
The iPhone is only popular because it's from Apple. For years the IPhone didn't have:
IM
MMS
Cut/Paste
MP3/AAC ringtones
Video recording
Bluetooth A2DP
There's many other great phones and carriers that easily surpass the IPhone and AT&T's shit network by a long-shot (Blackberry Tour, Palm Pre, HTC Pro)
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Woot. So. Another battle of the checkmarks.
I thought we passed the point where every new cellphone was the 'iPhone Killer'. Guess not. Slow news day, even for a Sunday. Back to bed.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Just like all the companies that came out with "the iPod Killer", companies (like Verizon here) just don't get it. It's not about coming out with the "most sophisticated mobile device to hit the market to date from a hardware standpoint." The iPhone wasn't the most sophisticated mobile device from a hardware standpoint when it came out. It's not about the hardware. Yes, the hardware can make several things really stand out but it's about the user experience. Companies continually ignore and overlook that aspect of it and that is why this phone will be cool and mobile geeks will sing its praises but it will not be a serious threat to the iPhone - it's not focusing on the right things.
Sorry, but we've heard "this is the iPod killer" too often and it's the exact same song and dance as this new round of "this is the iPhone killer."
You can always head to the dozen of rumor sites and read about it. There have been rumors about this phone for quite some time and quite a few shots were posted. Everyone who's into Android already knows what this phone looks like, hence the comment in the summary.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
The best way to challenge the iPhone is to not bill your phone as "the iPhone killer". Just let the phone do what it does best and people will eventually notice.
The problem I had with Verizon was never with their network or their phones but the management decisions that were made to cripple those phones to charge customers more money.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Specially from the hardware standpoint? Would be interesting to compare it with i.e. the Nokia N900 that is about to hit the market... with the extra advantage of not being tied to Verizon or anyone else afaik.
No, the iPhone was/is popular because it enables me to do useful things that I could not (and cannot) do as well with any other phone currently available. That simple.
Cut and paste? It's been out for months now, never used it. MMS? Never used it. MP3/AAC ringtones? Always supported, (you have to change the file extension is all), but actually never used them. Video recording? Never used it (and yes I have a 3gs.) I could go on, but literally all the features you bitch about are things that I don't want/never would use. Maybe you really do need them, but frankly I could give a crap less.
What I do use is an application for tracking my blood sugar. And another application for tracking my weight-training log. And another app that functions as a pedometer when I go walking/running. And another app that tracks my weight. Oh yeah, and an app that lets me do Go problems on my phone. And Kindle for iPhone. And... the list could go on ad infinitem, but the point is that your little checklist doesn't begin to encapsulate what makes this the best possible device for me.
Before iPhone, I had a Treo, I had a Blackberry, I had Windows Mobile. I hated them and never used even the features that came with them. With iPhone I use everything that comes with it and then some because the iPhone makes it easy. Could I figure out how to do this stuff on, say, my Blackberry? Yes. Was it fun? Hell no. Was it easy to find apps? No. Did the apps cost $1.99 each? No.
So, sorry, but the iPhone is not popular just because it's from Apple. It's popular because it works.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Why aren't they using the new TI OMAP3530 @720MHz? That should give them an advantage over the older OMAP3430 @600MHz.
I truly don't think Apple has anything to worry about. The iPhone's greatest strength is not the iPhone itself, but the App Store--the 10's of thousands of applications, games, etc. that are already available for it. The quality of these applications has improved markedly over the past year, and it's going to continue to improve. What does Android have? They say "thousands", but market realities being what they are I'm sure that the quality and development time that has gone into these thousands just isn't there. "There's an app for that" about covers it--with my iPhone, I know that whatever I'm doing I will have a choice of several apps that do it.
Can Android catch up? Probably eventually. But I think it's going to be difficult. First, Apple's already got a huge lead, and this is a self-perpetuating cycle. Huge lead means more developers, which means huge lead continues. Second, I think that in the long run Android's hardware diversity will hurt it when it comes to (for example) games--it's a pain for game developers to have to test on a wide variety of devices, and many of them may not bother until Android has proved itself as a platform. Last, it's worth remembering that Apple still commands a huge lead in the all-important digital content market. This creates a big incentive for people with large iTunes libraries to stay with iPhone.
Is Verizon's network better? Yes, probably. However, it's also reaching saturation. I live in a very rural area and have both an iPhone (personal) and a Verizon cell phone (work), and I pretty much get coverage everywhere I go. And let's not forget that AT&T's going to provide adequate coverage for 90+% of the population anyway, even if they do get spotty in rural areas.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I had Verizon for near 10 years. However, this last summer I switched to AT&T because verizon's network was dropping my calls in my apartment half the time or more. And this is just 2 miles outside of downtown Portland, Or. Haven't had a dropped call on my iPhone on AT&T yet.
So just remember that strength of network is not "national", because most people don't move around all the time. Find the network that is best in your area first, then pick a phone.
Its applications were all irrelevant to me
All 100,000?
I'm curious to know what it was you were looking for that didn't exist.
The iphone isn't 'must have', but its certainly nice to have- which isn't something I can say about any 'smart' phone previously. I haven't used android- maybe it is/will be better, but the iphone is already very good.
...I don't carry a cell right now, but my wife has an iPhone. ...
You've spelled your wife's url incorrectly.
My wife would not tolerate such slack goofing off.
Kids today are tyrants. They contradict their parent, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers. - Socrates 400 BC
if (post.contains("iPhone")) rage();
"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.'"
Oh? When I hear that "according to people who've handled the device, the Droid is the most comfortable, pleasant-to-use device to hit the market to date," then I'll pay attention.
I don't really know how Apple does it. Their UI and usability aren't all THAT great, yet they consistently manage to turn out stuff that really is usable. Maybe the mystery is how everyone else manages to screw it up. With the average gadget, it takes about ten minutes before you come across something so inexplicably, bafflingly sucky that you just can't figure out how it ever could have gotten out the door. Of course, I've worked in a company where the CEO dictated UI decisions and, unfortunately, had _bad_ taste. And I've also worked in a big company where the marketers simply would put down "ease of use" as a bullet point, and from that point on everyone just assumed the product had it because it was on the list.
I still can't figure out what Apple did that made iTunes the first viable online music store, or made the App Store the first viable software store for smart phones. It seems as if all they did was to avoid gross stupidity. That must be a lot harder to do than you'd think.
Afterthought: It occurs to me that one area in which vendors do get the usability consistently right, or at least "good enough," are digital cameras. I wonder why digital cameras are easy, or at least POSSIBLE to use, and cell phones aren't? I notice that digital camera makers do seem to be willing to spend a few extra cents to give the controls different shapes and turn in different directions, instead of confronting you with a uniform sea of buttons.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
you are aware that Apple went from a 2% cellphone share world wide to a 13% share in 2009, right? That is insane growth.
I am so sick of Verizon taking EVERYTHING good and finding ways to make to make it pointlessly crippled and useless.
Will this phone have tethering? Probably, but it's going to be disabled unless you pay $79.99 a month.
Will this phone have contact and calendar syncing? Probably, but it's going to be disabled unless you pay $5.99 a month.
Will this phone have music support? Definitely, but it's going to be severely crippled unless you pay $12.99 a month.
Take your network and SHOVE IT.
he kind of did with the list of things that he does do with his iPhone.
BTW... what defines a market leader is the company that everyone looks to to beat or the company that everyone looks to for the trendy new blah blah blah.
Apple is a leader in the market. If you define market leader to be the company that sells the most, then there are a lot of markets who's leader is a generic brand.
The big news here is that Verizon is clearly not going to carry the iPhone anytime soon. A few months ago, Verizon and Apple were "in talks". So, what happened? That's the most interesting part about this story. You guys are burying the lead.
Nitpicking, but they have 13% of the smartphone market, and under 2% of the total cellphone market. I'm not really sure what the distinction is these days, given that even cheap phones come with a 200MHz or faster ARM core and are capable of running arbitrary programs, but the people compiling these numbers like to divide the market up.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
And Apple have the worst case of NIH imaginable . The Newton team worked out how to do copy and paste sensibly on a touchscreen device almost twenty years ago. Drag object to edge of screen, it becomes a clipping. Drag it away, you can paste it elsewhere (even after switching apps). Intuitive, easy to use, and yet not done on the iPhone because the wrong team at Apple invented it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
All 100,000?
I'm curious to know what it was you were looking for that didn't exist.
Google Voice
For years only few phones had good email and browsing. The iPhone was great because it did, and was also integrated, from day one, to the then emerging cloud via google and .mac. It was also integrated to iTunes, and not dependent on cell company music services. For some this is a plus, as it makes it easy to rip tracks and put it on the phone.
But you are correct. There are many phones that some thinks surpass the iPhone, and those people should absolutely buy those phones. No one says that everyone should have an iPhone. All that happens is that people complain that the iPhone does not do everything. But we live in a competitive market place and the iPhone can do it's thing, and the others can do their thing. What is to be seen is whether Verizon, with the clearly superior network in the US, can put out a better integrated product than Apple.
What also remains to be seen is if data integrity can be assured with these other services. I have never lost data because Apple servers went bust. True, I pay extra for the service, but I think that others are going to consider the data retention service as part of the monthly fees, especially if using Android or MS Windows Mobile.Both MS and Google has recently caused data loss for at least some customer. Not a very good start for their cloud computing strategy.Perhaps they don't care about data retention, since these devices are mostly considered toys, and that is why they include such critial features such as MP3 ringtones and A2DP. That will leave Blackberry and iPhone for those that just need to get work done, so we can go and play in the real world.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
A 33 MHz 486 was several times faster than a 33 MHz 386.
MHz is almost meaningless when comparing speed, even in CPUs that are very similar. Even somewhat technical people fail to realize this frequently.
I'm a big tall mofo.
I am really wanting a great android phone to come out, because everyone does better work in an environment with competition.
But I don't like the initial ads, and here's why - because they read like they were targeted straight at a Slashdot reader.
The read like someone who has seen, and paid attention to, every Apple ad and every Slashdot story about lacking multitasking or not being as open as other phones. In fact the ad even says in big huge letters "Open development environment" - it a major ad targeting the general consumer!
Consumers do not care about that. They don't care how open or closed the development environment is, the mantra is "show me the apps". The iPhone is just multi-tasking enough with mail and a few other things actually running in the background, and now alerts, that people generally don't notice the lack of multitasking except for edge cases.
I think they could have focused more on what made Droid great, not what technical people perceive as lacking in the iPhone.
I have similar feels for Palm ads, I think the interface and OS is fantastic, but the ads have a very hard time explaining why you might like the phone. Honestly all Palm had to do was play the intro video (or variant of same formatted for TV screens) during a commercial and sales probably would skyrocket. There's nothing wrong with Palm hardware really, it's quite good at the moment even if a little weaker than the 3Gs.
I find it odd that so many people ignore the marketing lesson the iPhone taught at launch - if your product is good, simply show it working and let it speak for itself..
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"he kind of did with the list of things that he does do with his iPhone."
Yes, but he didn't justify how the iPhone does it better than other phones that offer equivalent or identical features like he claimed the iPhone does. I'm not saying the iPhone doesn't do it better, it'd just be nice to know how or why, rather than asserting that it does without any justification.
"Apple is a leader in the market. If you define market leader to be the company that sells the most, then there are a lot of markets who's leader is a generic brand."
So what measure are you using to quantify Apple as a leader? Certainly they led with the app. store and with their touch interface, no one can really argue that. However, whilst they led with those features, they were also led by others when it came to 3G, MMS, Browser on a phone and many, many other features. Apple is only really a leader in the market so far as touch interfaces and app stores go, but beyond that? They're certainly only a follower- in fact, they were arrogant enough initially to suggest that features like MMS, 3G and so forth weren't needed, only to end up conceeding and having to include them. This is the problem with the suggestion that Apple is a leader- for everything they lead on, there's still plenty that they're simply wrong about, or get led on. What they have going for them is the things they lead on are generally style related, and style sells pretty damn well- the iPhone interface looked so much slicker than pretty much anything else around at the time and when most people see a phone, it's that that they notice, not the underlying features. This is something Apple already demonstrated before with the iPod in that it certainly wasn't the first MP3 player to market, it certainly wasn't the most feature packed, but it was sure as hell the best looking.
I think the parent's point was that it's silly to come out with generic comments such as "the iPhone does it better" without justifying that. Similarly, it's wrong to suggest Apple is a market leader based on some arbitrary undefined metric because whilst for some metrics it is, there are plenty where it is unquestionably not.
This is the problem with Apple debates, you have those that are staunchly for the company, and those that are staunchly against with no objective middle ground and realisation that like pretty much anything, it has it's good points, and it has it's bad points, whether it has more good than bad or vice versa, is usually down to personal opinion, but to suggest it's entirely good or entirely bad is merely dishonest. It'd be nice if Slashdot grew the fuck up and was capable of objective, reasoned debate when it came to Apple and the likes but it just seems to be a pit of rabid fanboys resembling brutal all or nothing roman gladiator games of old rather than a group of smart, intelligent people having insightful discussions.
Apparently "Sholes" wasn't considered to be a very good name for the phone.
More info.
That's a pretty rash conclusion. Maybe they didn't implement copy and paste with a "yank board" for the same reason they didn't use Dylan as its primary language, not because of NIH but because it's obscure and unusual and does not meet market expectations.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The iPhone is a one trick pony, there are 8-10 Android phones now coming out, and that number will quadruple next year. Were seeing Android for flip phones putting it in areas Apple has yet to try to touch. Android will catch up with the iPhone in units deployed, even AT&T has Android units out there, and they're more than happy to trot that one out so they can likely put Apple in a bind. If the Droid is any indicator, Verizon will not be carrying the iPhone anytime soon which limits Apple's choices. I'm sure they shopped the iPhone to just AT&T and Verizon. Apple would not put it with a 2nd tier company, and Sprint has not been viable since it's acquisition of Nextel.
Their only choice today would be T-Mobile once their HSPDA+ upgrades are complete, Apple can say "Oh Look 21Mbps!", but by then LTE will be in full swing with Verizon, and they'll go "Ooh the iSlow or the LTE Droid at 30Mbps".
The phone makers were caught blindsided by the iPhone and now it's their turn to put Apple in a bind. Apple's choices are to stay closed and relegate itself to the "Other Phone" or open itself up and see OS X on more phones. Owning a iPhone myself I hope they stay closed, I've about had it with the battery life of the iPhone, and iTunes quirks.
Songbird + Andorid wil rock.
And, I've got a dog that barks while he chases cars.
But, I don't think for all his barking he will become a Lexus.
What I find most telling about these stories, is that in just about 2 years since Apple has entered the smartphone market, they have become the product to beat, the benchmark against which all others are measured. How did it happen that sophisticated, tech savvy and powerful companies like Microsoft, Nokia, Sony and RIM have such a hard time coming up with an answer, and only Google seems to be going somewhere?
I don't have all the answers, but one thing that seems clear is that Apple totally focusses on the user experience. I once made the error in 2000 to buy a PocketPC instead of a Palm based on the hardware specs. I learned then that a 16Mhz machine can be a better choice then a 200 Mhz one, if the first has been properly designed.
I've been using Nokia phones in the past, as they seem to understand the same lesson, I'm a little puzzled why they and the other established forces in the market have such a hard time formulating an answer to the iPhone. But then the seem thing seems to be happening in the MP3 player market.
What does Apple do that makes them so dominant in these markets so quickly, that the other players seem to fail to do? Even I've been converted recently, having bought a Macbook a year ago, and an iPhone last week, after having had a good experience with my iPod for years. Somehow other products in the same price range just don't measure up. (I did quite an extensive comparison with my alternative OS being Linux).
How does Apple become the measuring stick and the product to beat so quicky, even Microsoft usually needs half a decade and Billions and often they don't really succeed if it's outside the direct Windows sphere of control. (WinCE/Mobile/Phone, Xbox?)
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
I signed up for the Verizon marketing E-mail for the Droid phone, and saw this at the bottom:
DROID is a registered trademark of Lucasfilm Ltd. and its related companies. Used under license.