I know of plenty of smartphones available today better than what the iPhone claims it will deliver in 6 months. The iPhone claims to do nothing that can't be had today in far cheaper and smaller devices. Revolutionary my ass.
Frankly, ANY phone available today is better than the iPhone by virtue of its availability. The embarrassing thing is that Apple can't even promise anything new to justify the high cost and the extra years it is taking to deliver its "me-too" product. A year from now Apple will discover what other phone manufacturers have known for a long time; phones that rely solely on touchscreen suck.
I see far more than the face value that you see. I see a device that is productizing a new and unproven user input method. I see a company afraid of 3rd parties subverting their DRM system. I see a partner that is notorious for crippling phone software. I see a company famous for attempting to monopolize its own platforms. I see a CEO famous for his "reality distortion field". I see self-contradicting statements and attempts to mislead. I see business as usual.
If you want to believe that Jobs has only the user's best interests at heart then you are free to believe that. It is you that is failing to see all there is however.
Nothing, and it's certain the reason being "presented". It is, however, unlikely to be the real reason. Maturity of the platform, control over the device, and control over the revenue stream are far more likely reasons.
"The 160dpi screen says that - they won't have developed this software twice for both Macs and the phone, and even for phone-only software a 160dpi screen wouldn't have been available at the start of this device's development. "
Of course they develop software separate for Macs and the iPhone, and there's absolutely no evidence that a resolution independent UI exists for the iPhone and it does not yet exist for the Mac either. Screen dpi means nothing outside the context of viewing distance anyway. Phones are viewed at a different distance than desktops.
My current cell phone has a 180 dpi screen. 160 dpi screens have existed for some time. The iPhone display is unique for its size and its total pixel count, not its dpi (which is rather ordinary in fact).
"Dashboard itself isn't required of course, it's the WebKit development required to support Dashboard that I'm really referring to."
WebKit itself isn't required either. Widgets use existing Web technology and they could be run without any existing OS X software at all.
"That's easy - I do. Why on earth would you write this stuff twice? "
That's a relief. For a moment there I thought an expert might have been making a huge mistake.
Yes, it's clear how the hardware must work at the lowest level and how one step up from that might look. It's another thing to integrate that into a UI in a standardized way.
I agree that Apple brought the tech in rather than develop it themselves since we've all seen it from researchers already. That doesn't mean it's sorted out nor does it mean that the current iPhone software untilizes it well. Just because you have multitouch doesn't mean your interface consistently supports actions involving more than one touch at a time.
You are free to believe that multitouch is mature and already has stable APIs. I will continue to believe that it's in its infancy and that Apple isn't prepared to support more than hand-picked developers on the platform because of it.
"Apple's tendency is to favor application quality over quantity."
"There is a trade-off at some level between wide-open access for third-party development and platform stability."
"...there will be robust, well-designed apps to handle all key functions."
"And, frankly, that's all Apple needs to secure a chunk of what is a huge market."
All these are unsubstantiated claims. The first is unproven, the second arguably wrong, and the last two are simply speculation. Finally:
"You might be right, but I'll venture to guess that Apple knows what it's doing. We'll see how sales actually go when the phone hits the market. It's an empirical question, after all."
We will see how the iPhone does but we won't know how it might have done had 3rd party support been managed differently.
Here's the reason RoughlyDrafted offers for why Apple doesn't offer 3G data:
"With the iPhone, Apple is forcing Cingular to support and subsidize a phone that will save users money."
Apparently, RoughlyDrafted feels WiFi is ubiquitous and free while 3G data forces users into high fees. Couldn't be more stupid than that.
Likewise, its "substantiated look at how the iPhone is indeed running OS X" is nothing but substantiated. For example:
"Microsoft has intentionally referred to its various operating environments under the brand Windows, despite the fact that its Windows 95, Windows NT, and Windows CE products lines are all significantly different systems."
In other words, iPhone OS X is "OS X" like all flavors of Windows are Windows just as/. people have said. Never mind that most versions of Windows have run all Windows apps and have family resemblences in their UI. No one claims that Windows CE or WM5 is actually "Windows", we all know different, and likewise iPhone "OS X" is not "Mac OS X". The iPhone OS shares no development platform with OS X, it runs no Mac OS X software, and has no UI elements in common. It is in no way "OS X" from a user's perspective, it's simply named so by Apple. Of course, they also offered the following:
"Despite losing the Finder, key ideas are retained on the iPhone that will be familiar to Mac users. Along the bottom of the home screen is an iconic list of its four principle functions: phone, mail, web, and iPod."
They are suggesting that the icons across the bottom of the screen are like the dock, never mind that my dock doesn't run across the bottom of my screen. Apparently, the dock constitutes the "key ideas" that make OS X what it is according to RoughlyDrafted. "Substantiated look" indeed.
The third party software article is even more absurd and offers nothing constructive at all. In fact it's not even worth a read. The author attempts to redirect the argument to the iPod, Zune, and Xbox ignoring the fact that those are fixed function devices while the the iPhone is specifically advertised as a pocketable computer. He also parrots the Apple line that 3rd party software is of unacceptably low quality while ignoring that fact that it's never hindered other computer platforms including the Mac itself and other smartphones before the iPhone. The rest of the article is full of mental masturbation, attempted demonstrations of expertise, and claims of Apple genious and capability. The most blatantly transparent apology of the three.
RoughlyDrafted is just another Apple apologist blog and brings nothing new or interesting to the discussion.
BTW, macs don't come with software or codecs to record, transcode or play back the HD MPEG streams available on firewire. Firewire hard drives aren't required either. You could have just as easily said firewire deck + PC + magic software. Nice try.
Umm no. People are pissed off because Apple isn't allowing 3rd party development for the platform. Open sourcing the OS has never been mentioned and Apple has never done that before.
We all know that the device is meant to be a phone but Apple says it's a "mobile platform" and it's revolutionary. They are also saying that they are keeping the development and release of apps to themselves. That's what has people pissed off.
Any phone that gets broken by a low quality app is a phone that's a piece of shit. Don't blame the developers of that's the case, blame Apple. Also, I thought OS X was immune to viruses? Since when is a nonshipping, touchscreen-only, close-platform smartphone "staggering"? I know plenty of smartphones available today that are better.
No, he only said that there would be a more controlled environment and that the device needed to work. It was you that connected the two and concluded that the reason for control was to assure that the apps were "very robust so that the phone works reliably". The controlled environment that Jobs refers to could be, and likely is, for business reasons. App quality has never been a justification for closing a platform from Apple or any other computer or smartphone system before.
Who says the iPhone has a resolution-independent UI? Who says that running Widgets requires Dashboard? Who says that having the capabilities means that it's OS X?
Up until the iPhone introduction there was no distinction between "OS X" and "Mac OS X". Now there is and you should blame Steve Jobs for it. The confusion is deliberate and Apple is to blame.
Yes, it doesn't matter what the actual kernel is because the platform is closed and, if it were to be opened, only the APIs would matter. It's a new platform lacking the ability to run existing mac apps. Jobs calling it "OS X" is only an attempt to piggyback on the perceived superiority of that platform. It is likely that they are leveraging the OS X code base but that is another matter.
OS X is the trademark Apple uses for software that it produces. What it refers to is the operating system that is provided on Macs. In reality, Apple could call anything else it produces "OS X" since it owns the trademark. That's what it has done in this case.
The iPhone's system software does not run Mac apps so it's not what users have come to know as OS X. Apple has simply branded the iPhone OS as "OS X" and has admitted as such in followup interviews. What the iPhone uses may be based on "Mac OS X" to a large degree but it is not "Mac OS X" and Apple has made that clear. You cannot run Mac apps on an iPhone and the GUI is entirely different. Mac OS X development tools cannot be used to develop iPhone apps either.
What the iPhones has is an entirely new operating system also known as OS X that is likely related to Mac OS X but distinct. I personally feel Apple is making some significant branding errors with the "iPhone" and "OS X" names.
The iPhone has no keyboard, a 480x320 display, and a multitouch interface that's never been productized before. The UI for that will be significantly different than Mac OS X. If you don't get that right away there's no help for you.
Porting a mac app would take far more than simply changing the checkboxes for the target processor. That's most likely the real reason, or at least a major reason, why the platform is closed. I suspect Apple has no idea currently how to package the multitouch interface into a neat set of APIs.
The iPhone runs "OS X" because Apple owns the trademark to "OS X" and is entitled to apply the brand to the iPhone. Saying that it's OS X means nothing.
"Apple doesnt want to "go after" a market - Apple wants to create a market."
Create what market? The iPhone is no different than many cell phones that have come before it.
"Did you not look at the steve jobs statement about how Microsoft has "no culture" and do not try to "influence culture" ?"
Yes, he's a master bulshit artist.
"Apple was successful in creating the "culture of the Ipod"."
Ah, so Apple wants to convince people that they "created" the smartphone market long after it was established, just as they did with the iPod. I get it now, Apple plans to claim that the iPhone is creating a new market where one already exists.
"Try answering this - How much of a "music download market" was there before Itunes store ? Turns out it is 2 Billion $ and counting..."
The music download market was huge before iTMS and it is huge now. The difference is iTMS is paid where the majority of the market is not. I'll remind you that iTunes/ITMS/iTS is not the iPod and came before the iPod.
"iPhone is a *mobile platform* repeat after me - mobile platform !"
No need to repeat after you since I could just repeat after Jobs. The fact is that no cell phone is a "phone", it's a "mobile platform". Repeat after me, all cell phones are "mobile platforms - mobile platforms !"
"It is a device with excellent graphics and a touch screen interface."
Like a Treo or SE P990?
"And oh yeah - today it can browse the net, play music and call people."
Like every smartphone?
"Ever thought of the possibility that cars would have GPS recievers and plug into the iPhone for display and input from the users ?"
No, because cars would already have their own UI's for that. However, such a capability is within the scope of any smartphone.
"Ever thought of storing movies on the iPhone to stream it to your ITV (or anybody else's itv) to watch ?"
Oh, I see. It's unique becuase it offered imaginary and undesirable interoperability with other Apple products. Storing video and playing it on a TV is something the video iPod already does and playing video is already a capability of many smartphones. There are many personal video players on the market. Apple is a me-too player there.
"the possibilities are endless."
Not really. The possibilities are the same as for any other smartphone except that Apple, unlike most other smartphone makers, has chosen not to allow 3rd party development. There goes all the possibilities...
"500$ for a phone/music player/GPS navigator/mobile storage/mobile email,messaging,internet/Internet gateway for a laptop - maybe."
The iPhone doesn't have GPS. Everything else, and GPS too, is already done by devices in the existing and well established smartphone market. Face it, Apple is creating no new market here. They're just bullshitting their way into it with a shiney me-too product just like they did with the iPod.
"But really, the general sentiment when the iPod came out -- in the tech community in general, and the Slashdot community in particular -- was that it was going to tank. From a techie standpoint, it should have tanked, but advertising was great, and it made the mp3 player cute and accessible to the masses."
To the extent that was true, it goes to show that geeks don't know what makes a good product. The fact that the ones that that were vocal on/. were negative doesn't mean that the consensus was that there was no market for it. I was also negative on the iPod, it was too low in capacity at 5GB, but I knew that would get fixed in time. The iPod really wasn't very good for quite a while but neither was its competition.
"I realize though, that you're pointing out the caveats of the iPhone.. I just wanted to clarify that people were, in fact, saying much the same things about the iPod when it was released."
I think we are completely in agreement. I thought the iPod was lame, and it was, and I felt there were better alternatives for quite a while. I'm also negative on the iPhone but I hope and believe they will get fixed over time. I also agree that the iPhone game is different because there are entrenched, capable manufacturers in the cell phone market already.
"A swiss army knife is special not because it has any features not found elsewhere, but because all of those features are found in one place. This is the same story."
So you admit that the iPhone doesn't have any features that makes it unique. Regarding your analogy, the iPhone makes a poor "swiss army knife" compared to other phones since it offers fewer features in a larger package than, say, a Blackkack or a Dash.
"That's nice..."
I'm not sure what your rambling is trying to say. The iPhone does NOT actually run OS X, Jobs said it himself, it cannot run ANY mac app and development will not be open to 3rd party developers. These are the simple facts that you disputed earlier.
As far as there being other cell phones that you can develop for, of course there are. Jobs is just laying down a stinky smoke screen to disguise his greed or his inability to deliver product. As long as the platform is closed, it is NOT a "pocketable computer", it's a fixed function appliance. I have no idea what your point is about the iPod functions.
"It's amazingly hard to tell which is which..."
Valid criticism is not FUD and calling it so is actually FUD coming from the other direction. Frankly, I haven't seen any criticism of the iPhone that isn't valid so far nor have I seen any reason to suspect that it's been coming from competitors to the iPhone.
Yes, I do. I also see how stupid the analogy is. The iPhone is extremely similar to other devices that have come before it. There is little, in fact, that it can claim that is unique.
"...while there are phones that are kind of like it, there are no phones that are really like it."
Sure there are. List the features that makes the iPhone truly unique in your opinion and explain how they define a new product category. Can't do it.
"Thanks for the specious argument though. They're always the easiest to rebut."
If it was so easy, one would think you would have done it.
"It IS a miniature Mac in your pocket."
That is a lie straight from Job's mouth. There is no Mac GUI. They've simply stuck the same name on an entirely different product. If it were a Mac in your pocket then it would run Mac apps. It does not. It's not even extensible since there's no 3rd party app support. It's an appliance, not a "computer".
"It runs OSX and you have no fucking idea if it supports 3rd party apps or not since that hasn't actually been announced."
No, it isn't really OS X and no, it doesn't support 3rd party development. Straight from Apple.
"It would, of course, be absolutely retarded to not support 3rd party apps."
I'm glad you said that and I wholeheartedly agree. It's retarded and it's true.
"In fact there's a chance that this system is even based on an Intel Core processor, though I'd guess it's more likely to be a single-core than a dual."
I doubt it. It's likely an XScale processor since those are what Intel offers specifically for ultra-low power. If it's Core then it's battery life won't compete.
"But your statement above says that criticisms of the device are valid, and some of them are just asinine."
Saying that criticisms are valid is not the same as saying that ALL criticisms are valid. Which ones are asinine? Regardless, valid criticism is not FUD.
I hope so. Multitouch allows some cool things but I'm not sure it improves the experience consistently. I personally think that multitouch is why Apple isn't allowing 3rd party apps yet. I suspect it's just too new for them to know how to include the general programming public.
I think v1 will be for the hardcore and v2 will be interesting. Either it flops and dies or all the current criticisms will be addressed eventually. What a great device it would be with moving map GPS, a good web browser with fast data, and dowloadable TV shows.
Finally someone besides Palm is doing threaded text messages! Hopefully they will allow the iChat bubble interface to be turned off like they do on the Mac though. I can only hope...
Why are people choosing the iPaq as competition when it is much larger, more costly, and has GPS? The Dash and the Blackjack are both the size of the iPhone and much less costly. They include 3G data and are both $200 with contract.
There were hard drive mp3 players in the market when the iPod was introduced so there was a price and capability standard already in place. What differentiated the iPod was style and size (and lack of capacity). There were similarly priced players with 4x the capacity of the iPod at the time.
Likewise, there are many phones in the market today with much in common with the iPhone. The T-mobile Dash ($200 with contract) is the same size but lighter, comparable battery life, BT, WiFi, GSM, mp3, video, PDA functions. It has only half the display and no touchscreen but offers a full keyboard, a huge selection of 3rd party support, a memory slot and 3G data for 1/3 the price of the iPhone. The extra 4 or 8 GB can't justify the price and the entire iPhone platform is unproven and has failed in the past with other vendors. A sililar comparison could be made with the Blackjack.
Claiming that the iPhone is entirely new and has no competitors is what's "pretty useless". The iPhone doesn't offer anything new. It's a phone with a real iPod connector and a nice screen for video. It has liabilities as well.
Slashdot Mirror
"Stealing something requires a physical object or an idea that you then proceed to utilize commercially."
That is absurd. Theft does not require a physical object nor does it require commercial use.
I know of plenty of smartphones available today better than what the iPhone claims it will deliver in 6 months. The iPhone claims to do nothing that can't be had today in far cheaper and smaller devices. Revolutionary my ass.
Frankly, ANY phone available today is better than the iPhone by virtue of its availability. The embarrassing thing is that Apple can't even promise anything new to justify the high cost and the extra years it is taking to deliver its "me-too" product. A year from now Apple will discover what other phone manufacturers have known for a long time; phones that rely solely on touchscreen suck.
I see far more than the face value that you see. I see a device that is productizing a new and unproven user input method. I see a company afraid of 3rd parties subverting their DRM system. I see a partner that is notorious for crippling phone software. I see a company famous for attempting to monopolize its own platforms. I see a CEO famous for his "reality distortion field". I see self-contradicting statements and attempts to mislead. I see business as usual.
If you want to believe that Jobs has only the user's best interests at heart then you are free to believe that. It is you that is failing to see all there is however.
Nothing, and it's certain the reason being "presented". It is, however, unlikely to be the real reason. Maturity of the platform, control over the device, and control over the revenue stream are far more likely reasons.
"The 160dpi screen says that - they won't have developed this software twice for both Macs and the phone, and even for phone-only software a 160dpi screen wouldn't have been available at the start of this device's development. "
Of course they develop software separate for Macs and the iPhone, and there's absolutely no evidence that a resolution independent UI exists for the iPhone and it does not yet exist for the Mac either. Screen dpi means nothing outside the context of viewing distance anyway. Phones are viewed at a different distance than desktops.
My current cell phone has a 180 dpi screen. 160 dpi screens have existed for some time. The iPhone display is unique for its size and its total pixel count, not its dpi (which is rather ordinary in fact).
"Dashboard itself isn't required of course, it's the WebKit development required to support Dashboard that I'm really referring to."
WebKit itself isn't required either. Widgets use existing Web technology and they could be run without any existing OS X software at all.
"That's easy - I do. Why on earth would you write this stuff twice? "
That's a relief. For a moment there I thought an expert might have been making a huge mistake.
"iPhone clearly does have OSX."
iPhone clearly has components of OS X. OS X itself is the entire platform that runs Mac apps on a Mac. No other definition makes sense to Apple users.
"An OS isn't "the UI that people have become used to"."
Yes it is when we are talking about users. Yes, it's true that some platforms have multiple UIs. OS X isn't one of them.
Yes, it's clear how the hardware must work at the lowest level and how one step up from that might look. It's another thing to integrate that into a UI in a standardized way.
I agree that Apple brought the tech in rather than develop it themselves since we've all seen it from researchers already. That doesn't mean it's sorted out nor does it mean that the current iPhone software untilizes it well. Just because you have multitouch doesn't mean your interface consistently supports actions involving more than one touch at a time.
You are free to believe that multitouch is mature and already has stable APIs. I will continue to believe that it's in its infancy and that Apple isn't prepared to support more than hand-picked developers on the platform because of it.
"Apple's tendency is to favor application quality over quantity."
"There is a trade-off at some level between wide-open access for third-party development and platform stability."
"...there will be robust, well-designed apps to handle all key functions."
"And, frankly, that's all Apple needs to secure a chunk of what is a huge market."
All these are unsubstantiated claims. The first is unproven, the second arguably wrong, and the last two are simply speculation. Finally:
"You might be right, but I'll venture to guess that Apple knows what it's doing. We'll see how sales actually go when the phone hits the market. It's an empirical question, after all."
We will see how the iPhone does but we won't know how it might have done had 3rd party support been managed differently.
Here's the reason RoughlyDrafted offers for why Apple doesn't offer 3G data:
/. people have said. Never mind that most versions of Windows have run all Windows apps and have family resemblences in their UI. No one claims that Windows CE or WM5 is actually "Windows", we all know different, and likewise iPhone "OS X" is not "Mac OS X". The iPhone OS shares no development platform with OS X, it runs no Mac OS X software, and has no UI elements in common. It is in no way "OS X" from a user's perspective, it's simply named so by Apple. Of course, they also offered the following:
"With the iPhone, Apple is forcing Cingular to support and subsidize a phone that will save users money."
Apparently, RoughlyDrafted feels WiFi is ubiquitous and free while 3G data forces users into high fees. Couldn't be more stupid than that.
Likewise, its "substantiated look at how the iPhone is indeed running OS X" is nothing but substantiated. For example:
"Microsoft has intentionally referred to its various operating environments under the brand Windows, despite the fact that its Windows 95, Windows NT, and Windows CE products lines are all significantly different systems."
In other words, iPhone OS X is "OS X" like all flavors of Windows are Windows just as
"Despite losing the Finder, key ideas are retained on the iPhone that will be familiar to Mac users. Along the bottom of the home screen is an iconic list of its four principle functions: phone, mail, web, and iPod."
They are suggesting that the icons across the bottom of the screen are like the dock, never mind that my dock doesn't run across the bottom of my screen. Apparently, the dock constitutes the "key ideas" that make OS X what it is according to RoughlyDrafted. "Substantiated look" indeed.
The third party software article is even more absurd and offers nothing constructive at all. In fact it's not even worth a read. The author attempts to redirect the argument to the iPod, Zune, and Xbox ignoring the fact that those are fixed function devices while the the iPhone is specifically advertised as a pocketable computer. He also parrots the Apple line that 3rd party software is of unacceptably low quality while ignoring that fact that it's never hindered other computer platforms including the Mac itself and other smartphones before the iPhone. The rest of the article is full of mental masturbation, attempted demonstrations of expertise, and claims of Apple genious and capability. The most blatantly transparent apology of the three.
RoughlyDrafted is just another Apple apologist blog and brings nothing new or interesting to the discussion.
What does firewire have to do with HDMI?
BTW, macs don't come with software or codecs to record, transcode or play back the HD MPEG streams available on firewire. Firewire hard drives aren't required either. You could have just as easily said firewire deck + PC + magic software. Nice try.
"If it wasn't for the Newton, we wouldn't even have the ARM either. ;)"
What? Here's a patronizing link that proves you wrong on that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture
Umm no. People are pissed off because Apple isn't allowing 3rd party development for the platform. Open sourcing the OS has never been mentioned and Apple has never done that before.
We all know that the device is meant to be a phone but Apple says it's a "mobile platform" and it's revolutionary. They are also saying that they are keeping the development and release of apps to themselves. That's what has people pissed off.
Any phone that gets broken by a low quality app is a phone that's a piece of shit. Don't blame the developers of that's the case, blame Apple. Also, I thought OS X was immune to viruses? Since when is a nonshipping, touchscreen-only, close-platform smartphone "staggering"? I know plenty of smartphones available today that are better.
No, he only said that there would be a more controlled environment and that the device needed to work. It was you that connected the two and concluded that the reason for control was to assure that the apps were "very robust so that the phone works reliably". The controlled environment that Jobs refers to could be, and likely is, for business reasons. App quality has never been a justification for closing a platform from Apple or any other computer or smartphone system before.
Who says the iPhone has a resolution-independent UI? Who says that running Widgets requires Dashboard? Who says that having the capabilities means that it's OS X?
Up until the iPhone introduction there was no distinction between "OS X" and "Mac OS X". Now there is and you should blame Steve Jobs for it. The confusion is deliberate and Apple is to blame.
Yes, it doesn't matter what the actual kernel is because the platform is closed and, if it were to be opened, only the APIs would matter. It's a new platform lacking the ability to run existing mac apps. Jobs calling it "OS X" is only an attempt to piggyback on the perceived superiority of that platform. It is likely that they are leveraging the OS X code base but that is another matter.
Prove that it is OS X then. Just what is OS X?
OS X is the trademark Apple uses for software that it produces. What it refers to is the operating system that is provided on Macs. In reality, Apple could call anything else it produces "OS X" since it owns the trademark. That's what it has done in this case.
The iPhone's system software does not run Mac apps so it's not what users have come to know as OS X. Apple has simply branded the iPhone OS as "OS X" and has admitted as such in followup interviews. What the iPhone uses may be based on "Mac OS X" to a large degree but it is not "Mac OS X" and Apple has made that clear. You cannot run Mac apps on an iPhone and the GUI is entirely different. Mac OS X development tools cannot be used to develop iPhone apps either.
What the iPhones has is an entirely new operating system also known as OS X that is likely related to Mac OS X but distinct. I personally feel Apple is making some significant branding errors with the "iPhone" and "OS X" names.
The iPhone has no keyboard, a 480x320 display, and a multitouch interface that's never been productized before. The UI for that will be significantly different than Mac OS X. If you don't get that right away there's no help for you.
Porting a mac app would take far more than simply changing the checkboxes for the target processor. That's most likely the real reason, or at least a major reason, why the platform is closed. I suspect Apple has no idea currently how to package the multitouch interface into a neat set of APIs.
The iPhone runs "OS X" because Apple owns the trademark to "OS X" and is entitled to apply the brand to the iPhone. Saying that it's OS X means nothing.
"Apple doesnt want to "go after" a market - Apple wants to create a market."
Create what market? The iPhone is no different than many cell phones that have come before it.
"Did you not look at the steve jobs statement about how Microsoft has "no culture" and do not try to "influence culture" ?"
Yes, he's a master bulshit artist.
"Apple was successful in creating the "culture of the Ipod"."
Ah, so Apple wants to convince people that they "created" the smartphone market long after it was established, just as they did with the iPod. I get it now, Apple plans to claim that the iPhone is creating a new market where one already exists.
"Try answering this - How much of a "music download market" was there before Itunes store ? Turns out it is 2 Billion $ and counting..."
The music download market was huge before iTMS and it is huge now. The difference is iTMS is paid where the majority of the market is not. I'll remind you that iTunes/ITMS/iTS is not the iPod and came before the iPod.
"iPhone is a *mobile platform* repeat after me - mobile platform !"
No need to repeat after you since I could just repeat after Jobs. The fact is that no cell phone is a "phone", it's a "mobile platform". Repeat after me, all cell phones are "mobile platforms - mobile platforms !"
"It is a device with excellent graphics and a touch screen interface."
Like a Treo or SE P990?
"And oh yeah - today it can browse the net, play music and call people."
Like every smartphone?
"Ever thought of the possibility that cars would have GPS recievers and plug into the iPhone for display and input from the users ?"
No, because cars would already have their own UI's for that. However, such a capability is within the scope of any smartphone.
"Ever thought of storing movies on the iPhone to stream it to your ITV (or anybody else's itv) to watch ?"
Oh, I see. It's unique becuase it offered imaginary and undesirable interoperability with other Apple products. Storing video and playing it on a TV is something the video iPod already does and playing video is already a capability of many smartphones. There are many personal video players on the market. Apple is a me-too player there.
"the possibilities are endless."
Not really. The possibilities are the same as for any other smartphone except that Apple, unlike most other smartphone makers, has chosen not to allow 3rd party development. There goes all the possibilities...
"500$ for a phone/music player/GPS navigator/mobile storage/mobile email,messaging,internet/Internet gateway for a laptop - maybe."
The iPhone doesn't have GPS. Everything else, and GPS too, is already done by devices in the existing and well established smartphone market. Face it, Apple is creating no new market here. They're just bullshitting their way into it with a shiney me-too product just like they did with the iPod.
"But really, the general sentiment when the iPod came out -- in the tech community in general, and the Slashdot community in particular -- was that it was going to tank. From a techie standpoint, it should have tanked, but advertising was great, and it made the mp3 player cute and accessible to the masses."
/. were negative doesn't mean that the consensus was that there was no market for it. I was also negative on the iPod, it was too low in capacity at 5GB, but I knew that would get fixed in time. The iPod really wasn't very good for quite a while but neither was its competition.
To the extent that was true, it goes to show that geeks don't know what makes a good product. The fact that the ones that that were vocal on
"I realize though, that you're pointing out the caveats of the iPhone.. I just wanted to clarify that people were, in fact, saying much the same things about the iPod when it was released."
I think we are completely in agreement. I thought the iPod was lame, and it was, and I felt there were better alternatives for quite a while. I'm also negative on the iPhone but I hope and believe they will get fixed over time. I also agree that the iPhone game is different because there are entrenched, capable manufacturers in the cell phone market already.
"A swiss army knife is special not because it has any features not found elsewhere, but because all of those features are found in one place. This is the same story."
So you admit that the iPhone doesn't have any features that makes it unique. Regarding your analogy, the iPhone makes a poor "swiss army knife" compared to other phones since it offers fewer features in a larger package than, say, a Blackkack or a Dash.
"That's nice..."
I'm not sure what your rambling is trying to say. The iPhone does NOT actually run OS X, Jobs said it himself, it cannot run ANY mac app and development will not be open to 3rd party developers. These are the simple facts that you disputed earlier.
As far as there being other cell phones that you can develop for, of course there are. Jobs is just laying down a stinky smoke screen to disguise his greed or his inability to deliver product. As long as the platform is closed, it is NOT a "pocketable computer", it's a fixed function appliance. I have no idea what your point is about the iPod functions.
"It's amazingly hard to tell which is which..."
Valid criticism is not FUD and calling it so is actually FUD coming from the other direction. Frankly, I haven't seen any criticism of the iPhone that isn't valid so far nor have I seen any reason to suspect that it's been coming from competitors to the iPhone.
"See how stupid that sounds?"
p hone-hands-on-part-deux-why-isnt-it-white-and-othe r-questions-227575.php
Yes, I do. I also see how stupid the analogy is. The iPhone is extremely similar to other devices that have come before it. There is little, in fact, that it can claim that is unique.
"...while there are phones that are kind of like it, there are no phones that are really like it."
Sure there are. List the features that makes the iPhone truly unique in your opinion and explain how they define a new product category. Can't do it.
"Thanks for the specious argument though. They're always the easiest to rebut."
If it was so easy, one would think you would have done it.
"It IS a miniature Mac in your pocket."
That is a lie straight from Job's mouth. There is no Mac GUI. They've simply stuck the same name on an entirely different product. If it were a Mac in your pocket then it would run Mac apps. It does not. It's not even extensible since there's no 3rd party app support. It's an appliance, not a "computer".
"It runs OSX and you have no fucking idea if it supports 3rd party apps or not since that hasn't actually been announced."
Clearly you aren't reading, or don't want to read, news that shatters your iPhone world. Feast your eyes: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/macworld2007/gizmodo-i
No, it isn't really OS X and no, it doesn't support 3rd party development. Straight from Apple.
"It would, of course, be absolutely retarded to not support 3rd party apps."
I'm glad you said that and I wholeheartedly agree. It's retarded and it's true.
"In fact there's a chance that this system is even based on an Intel Core processor, though I'd guess it's more likely to be a single-core than a dual."
I doubt it. It's likely an XScale processor since those are what Intel offers specifically for ultra-low power. If it's Core then it's battery life won't compete.
"But your statement above says that criticisms of the device are valid, and some of them are just asinine."
Saying that criticisms are valid is not the same as saying that ALL criticisms are valid. Which ones are asinine? Regardless, valid criticism is not FUD.
I hope so. Multitouch allows some cool things but I'm not sure it improves the experience consistently. I personally think that multitouch is why Apple isn't allowing 3rd party apps yet. I suspect it's just too new for them to know how to include the general programming public.
I think v1 will be for the hardcore and v2 will be interesting. Either it flops and dies or all the current criticisms will be addressed eventually. What a great device it would be with moving map GPS, a good web browser with fast data, and dowloadable TV shows.
Finally someone besides Palm is doing threaded text messages! Hopefully they will allow the iChat bubble interface to be turned off like they do on the Mac though. I can only hope...
Sprint may not make some devices ineligible but Sprint's not the carrier ;-) Some carriers won't insure large, touchscreen, expensive devices.
Why are people choosing the iPaq as competition when it is much larger, more costly, and has GPS? The Dash and the Blackjack are both the size of the iPhone and much less costly. They include 3G data and are both $200 with contract.
There were hard drive mp3 players in the market when the iPod was introduced so there was a price and capability standard already in place. What differentiated the iPod was style and size (and lack of capacity). There were similarly priced players with 4x the capacity of the iPod at the time.
Likewise, there are many phones in the market today with much in common with the iPhone. The T-mobile Dash ($200 with contract) is the same size but lighter, comparable battery life, BT, WiFi, GSM, mp3, video, PDA functions. It has only half the display and no touchscreen but offers a full keyboard, a huge selection of 3rd party support, a memory slot and 3G data for 1/3 the price of the iPhone. The extra 4 or 8 GB can't justify the price and the entire iPhone platform is unproven and has failed in the past with other vendors. A sililar comparison could be made with the Blackjack.
Claiming that the iPhone is entirely new and has no competitors is what's "pretty useless". The iPhone doesn't offer anything new. It's a phone with a real iPod connector and a nice screen for video. It has liabilities as well.