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.'"

Comments

Advert for the verizon network?

[jpate]

The summary reads more like an advertisement for Verizon than anything else...

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[biryokumaru]

A good ad would better emphasize the competition to the "Jesus Phone" idea.

They should call it the "Muhammad phone."

*ducks*

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[TheRaven64]

I don't think they're even trying anymore. Take this sentence from the summary:

The Palm Pre could have been that challenger, but it lacked the Verizon network, and users were unimpressed with the hardware.

From a hardware standpoint, the Pre is pretty impressive, although I can't comment on the software not having used one. But it failed because 'it lacked the Verizon network'? What is this supposed to mean? Every other network in the USA is so bad that a device has to be on Verizon to succeed?

And people wonder why all of the major handset manufacturers except Apple consider the US market a waste of their time...

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[cbope]

Exactly. Since when does a US carrier "add value" in any sense of the word? All the US carriers do is cripple the phone hardware (disabling tethering, MMS, etc) and lock-in their customers. Glad I live in Europe where I'm free to choose the phone hardware and service independently, and the phones are not crippled. And I pay a reasonable amount when roaming in other countries and calls rarely get dropped. Oh yeah... that's called service.

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[Stile 65]

What's funny is Sprint phones can and do roam on Verizon. Since I switched to Sprint (from AT&T), I've been able to surf the web on my phone on the DC metro by roaming on Verizon towers - for free. (Of course, now GSM towers for AT&T/T-Mobile are going up in the DC metro too.)

I like how at first the OP mentions that the Droid has the same hardware as the Pre and later in the post says that users aren't impressed with the Pre's hardware.

Also, the Samsung Moment coming out in 2 weeks for Sprint has an 800MHz ARM-based CPU, where the one powering the Droid is apparently only 600MHz (I'm assuming that since the design is similar, the clock speed is a valid way to compare the performance of the CPUs; could be wrong on this).

As far as running Android 2.0, anyone with an Android phone can upgrade to that. That's one of the great things about Android in the first place.

In the end, though, I wish Motorola and Verizon good fortune launching this phone, because anything that increases Android (or Linux in general - Maemo is nice) adoption on consumer phones is cool with me. IMO Apple is so control freakish that they are firmly in "evil" territory, much more so than Microsoft.

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[Jurily]

Oh look! Another iPhone killer! This one will succeed, trust me!

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[TheRaven64]

Also, the Samsung Moment coming out in 2 weeks for Sprint has an 800MHz ARM-based CPU, where the one powering the Droid is apparently only 600MHz (I'm assuming that since the design is similar, the clock speed is a valid way to compare the performance of the CPUs; could be wrong on this).

Not exactly. The Moment, apparently, is going to have an ARM11 core, while the OMAP3 is a Cortex A8. The ARM11 core is an older design and gets slightly fewer instructions per clock (I think) as well as not supporting a number of the newer extensions to the architecture, like NEON (SIMD instructions) or Thumb-2 (16-bit instruction set for better cache usage).

Even that doesn't tell the whole story, because none of these chips are pure CPUs, they're systems-on-chip (SoCs) and so have a load of extra stuff. The OMAP3, for example, has an OpenGL ES 2.0 GPU core from PowerVR, a C64x DSP core from TI, and a few other specialist things. The C64x can handle things like MP3 playback in about 15mW, and can also be used for offloading various other things, like crypto functions. The GPU supports shaders, and so can be used for a wide variety of things. An OMAP3430 can decode 720p quite easily, because it has some hardware off the ARM core that's optimised for this. An 800MHz ARM11 almost certainly can't, but it may also be on a SoC that can.

Oh, and even within the same family you can't even compare clock-for-clock with ARM cores. The cheap licenses just let you stamp the core onto your die and connect it to your value-added cores, but the expensive ones let you tweak the design. The Snapdragon from Qualcomm is a Cortex A8, but they tweaked it quite a lot and it's a little bit faster than other people's versions per clock.

In short, comparing ARM SoCs based solely on clock speed is even more misleading than comparing x86 processors solely on clock speed.

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[nine-times]

I went another way with that quote: Oh, it could have been a challenger except that it wasn't on a good network and the hardware wasn't great? Really? Well, my old Nokia could have been a challenger, except for that part about not being a smartphone and having no data capabilities. I also made a phone out of cardboard, and it could have been a challenger except for the fact that it didn't work at all.

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should call it the "Muhammad phone."

Just what everyone needs, a backwards phone that is nearly a thousand years behind the times and if you do anything it doesn't like it will blow up.

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[Bobartig]

Sounds like astroturfing to me. I've never heard of ANYONE complaining about the Pre due to its network.

And, you are completely correct. You can hate the phone; you can hate the network. But, you can't hate the phone because of the network.

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[cyn1c77]

From a hardware standpoint, the Pre is pretty impressive

Except that it is made out of plastic and it flexes, so it feels flexy and looks cheap next to the aluminum and glass iPhone. Not knocking it, that is just a lot of peoples' complaints.

But it failed because 'it lacked the Verizon network'? What is this supposed to mean?

Verizon and AT&T are the largest US mobile carriers in the US in terms of numbers of subscribers (around 60 million). Sprint is a few million people behind and some of their former customers are still annoyed with their customer service. Verizon is also owned by Vodaphone, which has a much larger international market presence.

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[drawfour]

I was a Sprint customer since 2001, and seriously considered getting the Palm Pre. I played around with it for about 20 minutes in the Sprint store, and then talked to the salesman about it. What I wanted was to get my girlfriend on a family plan with me, and I wanted the Pre. She just wanted a free phone that could do some simple SMS messaging. She did not have any use for a data plan, smart phone, etc... But Sprint requires that on a family plan, if one phone has data, they all have to. That's another $25/mo for something that she did not need!

I told them that AT&T would let me get an iPhone with a data plan and another phone without data, and on the same family plan. The salesman said that with Sprint, that is the requirement. I told him that's fine with me, I'm going to AT&T. I switched to AT&T and got an iPhone, and haven't looked back. Sprint is the one screwing themselves and their partners (Palm) here.

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[SanityInAnarchy]

As opposed to a backwards phone that is nearly two thousand years behind the times and even if it does everything right, you'll kill it?

Re:Advert for the verizon network?

[neonleonb]

Plus, it takes 3 days to reboot!

Either brilliant advertising, or they're worried..

[jnmontario]

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.

IPhone. Blah Blah Blah

[XPeter]

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)

Just Don't Get It

[whisper_jeff]

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."

Re:Just Don't Get It

[Reality Master 101]

No, you're missing the point. The reason the iPhone caught on was not because it had zillions of whiz-bang features, it's because they took the time to get the features that it has *right*.

The reason I bought an iPhone was primarily because (finally) they got browsing right. I've always wanted a portable Internet device that happened to have a phone, and Apple delivered. For the record, I *despise* Apple-the-company, but the iPhone simply was that good. And that goes for a lot of the other features that the iPhone has. They don't have every feature, they just get the features they have to work in a smooth, elegant way.

Another case in point was the video camera. They didn't include video until they could do it "right" with the 3GS, and the video is damn good. The video you could get on the older phones through jailbreaking sucked balls.

And I want to emphasize this: I bought an iPhone *despite* Apple's marketing, which I can't tell you how much I hate. And despite Apple's slavish followers, which I also hate. The phone is just that good.

Re:Just Don't Get It

[TheRaven64]

It isn't the RDF that makes people like the iPhone, it's the fact that the UI only sucks slightly. It's the same reason people like Macs. For post people, any reasonably modern phone or computer does far more than they need. With an iPhone, they only spend a little bit of time fighting the UI. With something like a Series 60 phone, they spend most of the time fighting the UI. Same with the iPod. The UI had a lot of flaws - I filed a number of usability bug reports - but it was nowhere near as bad as most of the competitors available when it launched.

Once someone's switched, it's easier to keep them, because mentally they aren't comparing their current iPod/iPhone/Mac to what Apple's competition has available now, they're comparing it to what they switched from. Fortunately for the handset manufacturers, Apple still has a tiny share of the mobile phone market, so you can do very well without making people switch; you don't have to be better than the iPhone, you just have to be better than what they have now (which is easy) and cheaper than the iPhone (also not hard). The personal music player market is different, because Apple has over 70% of that already, although stand-alone media players are becoming rare now even cheap phones can store 8GB of music.

But

[dagamer34]

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 was never with their network

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:The problem was never with their network

[itsenrique]

Ditto on that, I have a curve 8330. Not a very new smartphone by any measures, but it does what i need and i like the interface enough. GPS locked down by vzw, even though its just a sattelite receiver chip, they want $9 a month to use it, and you have to use their ridiculous vzw navigator program or bb maps. No google maps gps (it will only use cell tower triangulation). Android phones are supposed to be about open functionality, lets just hope verizon doesn't muck it up with their brand of squeeze-em-dry tactics.

Re:The problem was never with their network

[Shatrat]

They would also disable Bluetooth file transfer so that people would have to pay for sending picture messages to get their pics off their phone wirelessly. All wireless companies in the U.S. are evil to some degree, but Verizon keeps them all in business by making them look customer-friendly in comparison.

Re:Lacked the Verizon network?

[peragrin]

That's because the user interface was designed around a desktop OS from 10 years ago.

In personal electronics beauty will beat functionality as non geeks don't want to carry ugly things. That is the iPhone's true success it looks good with a well dressed person. A crack berry makes someone look stuffy all business and no fun.

Besides verizon network is the opposite of AT&T's where one is good the other sucks, and vice versa, they both are limited to major cities and roads for full network access.

most sophisticated mobile device?

[gmuslera]

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.

Re:IPhone. Blah Blah Blah

[Fished]

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.

why aren't they using the new TI OMAP3530 @720MHz?

[unix_geek_512]

Why aren't they using the new TI OMAP3530 @720MHz? That should give them an advantage over the older OMAP3430 @600MHz.

Re:Lacked the Verizon network?

[Darkness404]

The problem with Windows Mobile is there has been no. And I mean no innovation in the last few years. Yes we have 7 which will be coming out... eventually. But seriously, 6.1 and 6.5 other than having a Zune-like UI are essentially the same as the Pocket PC 2000 OSes. There are UI inconsistencies, in general manufacturers find that its so ugly having the default UI so they switch to a different UI, etc. About the only benefit of Windows Mobile is that there are a lot of applications, but when you compare it to Android and the iPhone there really aren't that more real apps. To put it nicely, Windows Mobile sucks. If it was rock-solid stable, that would be one thing, but when everything is pretty much crap on it and it freezes all the time, why not just get an iPhone, Pre or Android device that is going to actually get better with time?

verizon network, no thanks

[zhevek]

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.

Re:IPhone. Blah Blah Blah

[modmans2ndcoming]

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.

Missing the Big Picture

[ezdude]

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.

Re:They don't care about challenging better phones

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Finally...The iphone killer (and it's not from

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:IPhone. Blah Blah Blah

[fermion]

Only the first two have anything to do with a phone. The rest are add on that move a phone to a multimedia device. Kids and some parents will miss many of these features, but many just wanted email and web browsing. BTW, there was only a year when the iPhone did not have mp3 ringtones. Again, a feature only a few annoying people would consider critical.

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.

Re:Finally...The iphone killer (and it's not from

[iluvcapra]

and yet not done on the iPhone because the wrong team at Apple invented it

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.