Slashdot Mirror
iPhone 3.1 Spotted In Field Testing
kai_hiwatari writes "Digitizor reports that the next generation of the iPhone was spotted in the analytics log of an iPhone app called iBart. The device, it seems, was identified as iPhone 3.1 in the log. When iPhone 2.1 was spotted, it was followed by iPhone 3G."
Yeah, but if you have to read literally daily stories about one of those products, no matter how trivial (in this case, a non-news item based on rumour, that even if it was true, tells us nothing other than the bleeding obvious that they are developing new products), you might get annoyed, or simply wonder why such disproportionate advertising was being given to them.
And your comparison is flawed - Firefox, Windows, Google have much bigger market share than the Iphone. The third problem with your argument is that there is virtually no coverage of any of the larger players in the phone market. A better analogy would be getting daily coverage of, I don't know, Opera, whilst never giving any coverage to IE or Firefox.
I can see it now: "New Opera user agent string spotting in field testing!" Is that news, do you think? And do you think it would make sense to have those kind of stories, whilst not having any stories even when a full version of IE or Firefox is officially actually released?
Ah great, welcome to the 2000s.
But wait - when the Iphone lacked these features, we had no end of "But the Iphone is better off without copy/paste and MMS, it has better paradigms to do these things (but I can't explain what), and what makes Apple so great is that they remove the clutter of items it thinks you don't want". So are we now agreed that the Iphone is worse because it has these features? Or do they concede that this argument was, as I believed all along, nonsense?
The point still stands though - when copy/paste and MMS came out, the fact that people queued in line for them doesn't show Apple are great, it shows that people wanted the "new" (for the Iphone) features.